Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1qi1dr

I think Social Security should by definition be tied to the average age of death. CMV

Social Security in the United States is unsustainable. When it was created, life expectancy was much shorter and people did not generally live on it for very long. Now, people can be dependent on their Social Security paycheck for thirty years or more. With the average life expectancy going up so much, this model is mathematically guaranteed to fail in this generation at this rate. Yeah, it will hurt, but it needs to gradually be pushed back to, say, the average lifespan minus five years (so roughly 72). Perhaps in the eight or so years between the current age and the new one there would be a dormant period where those still working would neither pay into the program nor receive from it.

I think Social Security should by definition be tied to the average age of death. CMV. Social Security in the United States is unsustainable. When it was created, life expectancy was much shorter and people did not generally live on it for very long. Now, people can be dependent on their Social Security paycheck for thirty years or more. With the average life expectancy going up so much, this model is mathematically guaranteed to fail in this generation at this rate. Yeah, it will hurt, but it needs to gradually be pushed back to, say, the average lifespan minus five years (so roughly 72). Perhaps in the eight or so years between the current age and the new one there would be a dormant period where those still working would neither pay into the program nor receive from it.

t3_3f22c5

CMV: Being proud of one's "race" is ignorant & only contributes to & reinforces the social construct of racism.

**Definitions:** **Race** - The classification of humans into different sub-sects based on physical attributes (skin color, bone structure, etc). **Racism** - The belief that the racial classification one identifies with is superior/inferior to others, primarily on the basis of genetics (including but not limited to: intelligence, athleticism, etc). **Pride** (taken from Google) - a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired. ------------------------------------ My position on this comes from several different beliefs I hold: 1) Race is an arbitrary social construct, not a genetic one (i.e., it's impossible to objectively define race, much less determine one's race by observing their genome). 2) Skin color / bone structure are inherited attributes, not achievements. Taking pride in an inherited attribute (sex, skin color, height, etc) is reflective of a belief that said attribute is superior to others on it's own merits. 3) Culture, nationality, and ancestry can be meaningfully separated from the social construct of race (i.e., being proud of *the achievements* of one's ancestors, culture, or country is not equivalent to being generally proud of one's inherited attributes). 4) Defining oneself by a social construct like race empowers and reinforces the social construct, thereby perpetuating racism. In my view, the statement "I'm proud of my _____ lineage" is totally valid, whereas "I'm proud of my race" is ignorant and serves only to uphold racist social constructs (regardless of whether the impact(s) of that construct could be argued to be positive or negative). CMV Edit 1 - Formatting _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Being proud of one's "race" is ignorant & only contributes to & reinforces the social construct of racism. **Definitions:** **Race** - The classification of humans into different sub-sects based on physical attributes (skin color, bone structure, etc). **Racism** - The belief that the racial classification one identifies with is superior/inferior to others, primarily on the basis of genetics (including but not limited to: intelligence, athleticism, etc). **Pride** (taken from Google) - a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired. ------------------------------------ My position on this comes from several different beliefs I hold: 1) Race is an arbitrary social construct, not a genetic one (i.e., it's impossible to objectively define race, much less determine one's race by observing their genome). 2) Skin color / bone structure are inherited attributes, not achievements. Taking pride in an inherited attribute (sex, skin color, height, etc) is reflective of a belief that said attribute is superior to others on it's own merits. 3) Culture, nationality, and ancestry can be meaningfully separated from the social construct of race (i.e., being proud of *the achievements* of one's ancestors, culture, or country is not equivalent to being generally proud of one's inherited attributes). 4) Defining oneself by a social construct like race empowers and reinforces the social construct, thereby perpetuating racism. In my view, the statement "I'm proud of my _____ lineage" is totally valid, whereas "I'm proud of my race" is ignorant and serves only to uphold racist social constructs (regardless of whether the impact(s) of that construct could be argued to be positive or negative). CMV Edit 1 - Formatting

t3_3v0sqn

CMV: People have a responsibility to themselves, not to their gender or race. Within legal limits we should do whatever we want, however we want.

So I was recently having a discussion with somebody about a contestant of the UK Apprentice. She's a woman who recently got in the news for becoming a lingerie model. Anyway, the guy I was talking to basically said this: "It's gross that women like her are so comfortable representing their gender in such a terrible light." The person I was talking to is a major feminist and I was really confused. In my view, the woman's responsibility is to herself: if you can make money being an underwear model, so be it. Do what you can within the law to get ahead. Why does she have a responsibility to her gender? Does she? I don't know man. I'm not strictly feminist but I'm all for equality of rights - I just don't see what's wrong with the contestant going into underwear modelling. Anyway the discussion progressed and he said "women like Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez are setting a terrible precedent for their gender" which, for the same reasons, confused me. Why do they have any responsibility for how their gender is presented in the media? I recognize that they might be contributing to unhealthy views but is that really their problem at all? I'll be honest, I think I'm right on this one. Super right. But whenever I express this view I get absolutely shit on by close friends and family - what the fuck am I missing? Have I gone insane? Anyway some insight into the opposing view would be super, or at least some criticism of my own. Thanks. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People have a responsibility to themselves, not to their gender or race. Within legal limits we should do whatever we want, however we want. So I was recently having a discussion with somebody about a contestant of the UK Apprentice. She's a woman who recently got in the news for becoming a lingerie model. Anyway, the guy I was talking to basically said this: "It's gross that women like her are so comfortable representing their gender in such a terrible light." The person I was talking to is a major feminist and I was really confused. In my view, the woman's responsibility is to herself: if you can make money being an underwear model, so be it. Do what you can within the law to get ahead. Why does she have a responsibility to her gender? Does she? I don't know man. I'm not strictly feminist but I'm all for equality of rights - I just don't see what's wrong with the contestant going into underwear modelling. Anyway the discussion progressed and he said "women like Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez are setting a terrible precedent for their gender" which, for the same reasons, confused me. Why do they have any responsibility for how their gender is presented in the media? I recognize that they might be contributing to unhealthy views but is that really their problem at all? I'll be honest, I think I'm right on this one. Super right. But whenever I express this view I get absolutely shit on by close friends and family - what the fuck am I missing? Have I gone insane? Anyway some insight into the opposing view would be super, or at least some criticism of my own. Thanks.

t3_3p5r06

CMV: The Internet should never have been commercialized, at least not to the extent it is now, because it's basically turned the Internet into TV2

I'm not saying that business and trade shouldn't be allowed online, like during the NSFNET days. What I'm saying is that I think it was a mistake for the NSF to sell off the Internet pipes to commercial providers and it was a mistake to allow private search engines to dominate the Web so much. While I think Google, Netflix and Facebook are in general great services, their level of domination over the Net is not only dangerous, it destroys much of the original purpose of the Internet - a place dedicated to the pursuit of learning, and unfettered communication and learning between the people of the world. More and more, the Internet is becoming an echo chamber and propaganda machine for the corporate agenda. Look at what happened to YouTube. In the early days (2005-07), you could upload any random crap and people would inevitably stumble on it with a keyword. Nowadays celebrities and businesses inject money into the system and ads are everywhere. It's come to the point where it's fundamentally little different from television, and the Web and Net in general are like that now in many ways. Look at the way Facebook destroyed the home page and increasingly, the web site. Google/Netflix/YouTube/Facebook is pretty much over 50 percent of the Internet now. They choose which Internet content is searchable. I would argue that if Net Neutrality may still technically be alive, Web neutrality has been dead for years. Although the commercialization of the Net definitely made it grow faster and reach more people sooner, it came at a huge cost. The Internet obviously wasn't nearly as technically sophisticated in the 1980s-90s-early 00s but it was a lot more unique as a medium. Today the only thing that really makes the Internet superior to the old mediums is its speed and the fact it packs them all into one box. It's almost as brain-dead and centralized as TV and the telephone system now, because even if its technical medium is decentralized it's still very centralized due to the influence of money. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The Internet should never have been commercialized, at least not to the extent it is now, because it's basically turned the Internet into TV2. I'm not saying that business and trade shouldn't be allowed online, like during the NSFNET days. What I'm saying is that I think it was a mistake for the NSF to sell off the Internet pipes to commercial providers and it was a mistake to allow private search engines to dominate the Web so much. While I think Google, Netflix and Facebook are in general great services, their level of domination over the Net is not only dangerous, it destroys much of the original purpose of the Internet - a place dedicated to the pursuit of learning, and unfettered communication and learning between the people of the world. More and more, the Internet is becoming an echo chamber and propaganda machine for the corporate agenda. Look at what happened to YouTube. In the early days (2005-07), you could upload any random crap and people would inevitably stumble on it with a keyword. Nowadays celebrities and businesses inject money into the system and ads are everywhere. It's come to the point where it's fundamentally little different from television, and the Web and Net in general are like that now in many ways. Look at the way Facebook destroyed the home page and increasingly, the web site. Google/Netflix/YouTube/Facebook is pretty much over 50 percent of the Internet now. They choose which Internet content is searchable. I would argue that if Net Neutrality may still technically be alive, Web neutrality has been dead for years. Although the commercialization of the Net definitely made it grow faster and reach more people sooner, it came at a huge cost. The Internet obviously wasn't nearly as technically sophisticated in the 1980s-90s-early 00s but it was a lot more unique as a medium. Today the only thing that really makes the Internet superior to the old mediums is its speed and the fact it packs them all into one box. It's almost as brain-dead and centralized as TV and the telephone system now, because even if its technical medium is decentralized it's still very centralized due to the influence of money.

t3_24b17j

CMV: The "genocide" of the Native Americans was unavoidable and should be viewed the same as any other historical conquest.

I don't support how the natives were treated and I am aware of the numerous atrocities committed both by individuals and by entire levels of the American government. However, in the process of forming a unified nation, the idea of allowing tribal peoples to live on resource rich land and contribute nothing to the nation at large forever and ever is fanciful and absurd. We obtained the land by right of conquest and, as cultural assimilation failed, there was no other possible outcome that would have benefited the rest of America. How is it any different than when the Normans conquered the Franks? Or literally any other example.

CMV: The "genocide" of the Native Americans was unavoidable and should be viewed the same as any other historical conquest. I don't support how the natives were treated and I am aware of the numerous atrocities committed both by individuals and by entire levels of the American government. However, in the process of forming a unified nation, the idea of allowing tribal peoples to live on resource rich land and contribute nothing to the nation at large forever and ever is fanciful and absurd. We obtained the land by right of conquest and, as cultural assimilation failed, there was no other possible outcome that would have benefited the rest of America. How is it any different than when the Normans conquered the Franks? Or literally any other example.

t3_225tp4

CMV: I think that this Healthcare system would work. (link of what I am talking about in description)

This is a video from Vlogbrothers on youtube and after hearing a lot of Healthcare debates I really thought this one stands above the rest. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M I think it would work because it would create enough competition for prices to go down and the Healthcare companies would need to make money so naturally the prices would go lower. Can anybody point out any flaws in this video? Thank you very much to whoever can and thanks to anybody for responding.

CMV: I think that this Healthcare system would work. (link of what I am talking about in description). This is a video from Vlogbrothers on youtube and after hearing a lot of Healthcare debates I really thought this one stands above the rest. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M I think it would work because it would create enough competition for prices to go down and the Healthcare companies would need to make money so naturally the prices would go lower. Can anybody point out any flaws in this video? Thank you very much to whoever can and thanks to anybody for responding.

t3_70xmgp

CMV: Public School Education in the US is actually great

I keep hearing that public education in the US is deplorable and has been for a long time. If that's the case, and if education is so essential, then why is the US still the economic and scientific powerhouse of the world? Anecdotally, I went to a public school in the midwest in the 90s, my wife went to a public school in NYC in the 90s, we both liked our schools and went on to ivy league colleges. Statistically, US ranks middling, while countries like Singapore, Estonia, Japan, Taiwan, and Finland leads the pack. However, it turns out that if you adjust for socio-economic factors, the US would actually rank pretty high: https://ed.stanford.edu/news/poor-ranking-international-tests-misleading-about-us-performance-new-report-finds So I think the more accurate picture is: middle-class and well-off students in the US attending public schools are doing great, while disadvantaged minority kids are doing very poorly. Taken together, the US performs very average. However, this is really not the fault of our schools, since we spend a lot of money on poor inner-city schools for minorities. Schools cannot substitute for parents and peers who care about and support education, and until and unless the communities themselves are transformed, poor minorities will always perform badly in schools. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Public School Education in the US is actually great. I keep hearing that public education in the US is deplorable and has been for a long time. If that's the case, and if education is so essential, then why is the US still the economic and scientific powerhouse of the world? Anecdotally, I went to a public school in the midwest in the 90s, my wife went to a public school in NYC in the 90s, we both liked our schools and went on to ivy league colleges. Statistically, US ranks middling, while countries like Singapore, Estonia, Japan, Taiwan, and Finland leads the pack. However, it turns out that if you adjust for socio-economic factors, the US would actually rank pretty high: https://ed.stanford.edu/news/poor-ranking-international-tests-misleading-about-us-performance-new-report-finds So I think the more accurate picture is: middle-class and well-off students in the US attending public schools are doing great, while disadvantaged minority kids are doing very poorly. Taken together, the US performs very average. However, this is really not the fault of our schools, since we spend a lot of money on poor inner-city schools for minorities. Schools cannot substitute for parents and peers who care about and support education, and until and unless the communities themselves are transformed, poor minorities will always perform badly in schools.

t3_1g3j3i

I think that SRS is counterproductive. CMV

I think SRS hurts more than it helps by responding to ignorant comments by publicly shaming individuals as well as thinking they're superior to everyone else on Reddit. I'm of the opinion that responding to hate with hate breeds more hate and that nothing good will come out of it.

I think that SRS is counterproductive. CMV. I think SRS hurts more than it helps by responding to ignorant comments by publicly shaming individuals as well as thinking they're superior to everyone else on Reddit. I'm of the opinion that responding to hate with hate breeds more hate and that nothing good will come out of it.

t3_1ezzl9

I believe that consciousness is not generated by the brain, but a fundamental aspect of the universe. CMV

This is a view which is very much out of vogue within today's scientific community, but it's an idea that has historically been embraced by many great thinkers, including but not limited to, Karl Popper, William James, John Eccles, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and others. There are two main branches of argument in favor of this hypothesis that I find persuading. The first is arguments that deal with the so called 'explanatory gap' or 'hard problem' of consciousness. David Chalmers gives some of the clearest arguments in favor of the reality of the hard problem, and why it implies a non-brain generated consciousness. Many of his papers are hosted on his site [here](http://consc.net/consc-papers.html). For a briefer introduction to his ideas, Closer to Truth offers a good [interview](http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/David-Chalmers/18) with him. The second branch is arguments that propose a model of the brain as a localizer and filter of consciousness, instead of a generator. Chris Carter gives a good overview of this model of the mind-brain relationship, and offers a rebuttal to a skeptical reply of his overview. [1](http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/carter/consciousness.htm) [2](http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/carter/augustine.htm) I think author Bernardo Kastrup makes the clearest arguments in favor of this model, and offers several lines of evidence in support of it. He makes his case in the first article of this [journal](http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/5/3/7753171/paranthropology_vol_3_no_3.pdf). He's also received and responded to criticisms of his hypothesis from Christof Kock and Steven Novella on his blog, neither of whom seemed to adequately address his points, from my point of view. [1](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/02/response-to-christof-koch.html) [2](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply.html) [3](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply-part-2.html) [4](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply-part-3.html) [5](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply-part-4.html) [6](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/tying-up-few-loose-ends.html)

I believe that consciousness is not generated by the brain, but a fundamental aspect of the universe. CMV. This is a view which is very much out of vogue within today's scientific community, but it's an idea that has historically been embraced by many great thinkers, including but not limited to, Karl Popper, William James, John Eccles, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and others. There are two main branches of argument in favor of this hypothesis that I find persuading. The first is arguments that deal with the so called 'explanatory gap' or 'hard problem' of consciousness. David Chalmers gives some of the clearest arguments in favor of the reality of the hard problem, and why it implies a non-brain generated consciousness. Many of his papers are hosted on his site [here](http://consc.net/consc-papers.html). For a briefer introduction to his ideas, Closer to Truth offers a good [interview](http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/David-Chalmers/18) with him. The second branch is arguments that propose a model of the brain as a localizer and filter of consciousness, instead of a generator. Chris Carter gives a good overview of this model of the mind-brain relationship, and offers a rebuttal to a skeptical reply of his overview. [1](http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/carter/consciousness.htm) [2](http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/carter/augustine.htm) I think author Bernardo Kastrup makes the clearest arguments in favor of this model, and offers several lines of evidence in support of it. He makes his case in the first article of this [journal](http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/5/3/7753171/paranthropology_vol_3_no_3.pdf). He's also received and responded to criticisms of his hypothesis from Christof Kock and Steven Novella on his blog, neither of whom seemed to adequately address his points, from my point of view. [1](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/02/response-to-christof-koch.html) [2](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply.html) [3](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply-part-2.html) [4](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply-part-3.html) [5](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/novellas-reply-part-4.html) [6](http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/05/tying-up-few-loose-ends.html)

t3_3h3x7l

CMV: The term "Cultural appropriation" inaccurate when we live in a multicultural society.

We live in a multi-cultural society. All cultures are blending together and evolving/adapting and taking on elements of each-other. As such, the idea of cultural appropriation does not make a lot of sense to me. The idea of existing in a vacuum and any one culture remaining static is silly and naive at best and xenophobic at worst. I think the more we absorb of each-others cultures, the better off we, as a society, will be. So I think "cultural appropriation" is simply misplaced moral panic, CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The term "Cultural appropriation" inaccurate when we live in a multicultural society. We live in a multi-cultural society. All cultures are blending together and evolving/adapting and taking on elements of each-other. As such, the idea of cultural appropriation does not make a lot of sense to me. The idea of existing in a vacuum and any one culture remaining static is silly and naive at best and xenophobic at worst. I think the more we absorb of each-others cultures, the better off we, as a society, will be. So I think "cultural appropriation" is simply misplaced moral panic, CMV

t3_2ddkrp

CMV: limiting fossil fuels is the only way to reduce carbon emissions

Most of the schemes I have seen to reduce carbon emissions involve various ways of reducing the carbon emissions of a certain activity. For example we might be encouraged to buy fuel efficient cars, take the train instead of an airplane, eat vegetarian food, put solar cells on the roof etc. I claim that these schemes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Lets say that a person owns a car that requires 200 liters of gasoline per month. They then replace it with a 100 liter gasoline per month. What will happen is that someone else will buy and burn the 100 liters that was saved. If we cut fuel consumption of cars in half the amount of cars would double or people would buy bigger lawnmowers or eat more meat. The fuel is still going to be used. The only way to reduce emissions is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Currently we produce roughly 5 billion cubic meters of oil every year. As long as we produce that much oil co2 emissions won't decline. The only way to reduce emissions would be if the oil producing countries decided to reduce production by lets say 50 million cubic meters/year every year. This would create a shortage of oil and that would mean that people would find ways to use less oil. Trying to reduce your consumption while production stays the same just means the oil will be bought by someone else. Please change my view as I am not very optimistic about oil producing countries agreeing to leaving tens of billions of cubic meters of oil in the ground. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: limiting fossil fuels is the only way to reduce carbon emissions. Most of the schemes I have seen to reduce carbon emissions involve various ways of reducing the carbon emissions of a certain activity. For example we might be encouraged to buy fuel efficient cars, take the train instead of an airplane, eat vegetarian food, put solar cells on the roof etc. I claim that these schemes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Lets say that a person owns a car that requires 200 liters of gasoline per month. They then replace it with a 100 liter gasoline per month. What will happen is that someone else will buy and burn the 100 liters that was saved. If we cut fuel consumption of cars in half the amount of cars would double or people would buy bigger lawnmowers or eat more meat. The fuel is still going to be used. The only way to reduce emissions is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Currently we produce roughly 5 billion cubic meters of oil every year. As long as we produce that much oil co2 emissions won't decline. The only way to reduce emissions would be if the oil producing countries decided to reduce production by lets say 50 million cubic meters/year every year. This would create a shortage of oil and that would mean that people would find ways to use less oil. Trying to reduce your consumption while production stays the same just means the oil will be bought by someone else. Please change my view as I am not very optimistic about oil producing countries agreeing to leaving tens of billions of cubic meters of oil in the ground.

t3_2ecp0h

CMV: People who get a free drink or do not "pay-it-forward" are not doing anything wrong

I saw this article today http://gawker.com/cheap-bastard-ends-10-hours-of-starbucks-customers-pay-1625511330/all And it was thought it was an unnecessary shaming of someone. Someone who simply buys their own drink is performing a neutral action, and as such are not obligated to "pay-it-forward". People who obtain a free drink are beneficiaries of the system. There's no point to paying it forward if no one can get a free drink. Sometimes people are down on their luck, sometimes they would like to spend the money on something else and sometimes they are simply happy accepting someone's generosity - which is what it is (or should be). I do think that someone who is a beneficiary of the system should try to pay it forward, and should *never* try to game the system - i.e. try to keep exploiting the kindness of strangers, while putting nothing back. In practice I believe it is not very common. However I fail to see the validity in the sentiments expressed in the article and I thought someone could help me see it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People who get a free drink or do not "pay-it-forward" are not doing anything wrong. I saw this article today http://gawker.com/cheap-bastard-ends-10-hours-of-starbucks-customers-pay-1625511330/all And it was thought it was an unnecessary shaming of someone. Someone who simply buys their own drink is performing a neutral action, and as such are not obligated to "pay-it-forward". People who obtain a free drink are beneficiaries of the system. There's no point to paying it forward if no one can get a free drink. Sometimes people are down on their luck, sometimes they would like to spend the money on something else and sometimes they are simply happy accepting someone's generosity - which is what it is (or should be). I do think that someone who is a beneficiary of the system should try to pay it forward, and should *never* try to game the system - i.e. try to keep exploiting the kindness of strangers, while putting nothing back. In practice I believe it is not very common. However I fail to see the validity in the sentiments expressed in the article and I thought someone could help me see it.

t3_1zblbf

I think being Jewish is a religion and not an ethnicity. CMV.

I never understood when somebody would tell me that they're half-Jewish. That just seems so absurd to me. To me, being Jewish is a choice in the same way that being a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist is. I don't go around saying I'm half Catholic because my Mom is. I feel like people respond to this by saying that being Jewish is an ethnicity and it's in your blood. However, the same could then be said about any other religion. Why is there a distinction made between being Jewish and being affiliated with any other religious belief?

I think being Jewish is a religion and not an ethnicity. CMV. I never understood when somebody would tell me that they're half-Jewish. That just seems so absurd to me. To me, being Jewish is a choice in the same way that being a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist is. I don't go around saying I'm half Catholic because my Mom is. I feel like people respond to this by saying that being Jewish is an ethnicity and it's in your blood. However, the same could then be said about any other religion. Why is there a distinction made between being Jewish and being affiliated with any other religious belief?

t3_2ls2f4

CMV: Capitalism will not survive the the next decade.

I just don't see a future where our current capitalist system will survive automation. I'm a graphic/web designer, so I work with a lot of businesses to build their brand. Capitalism is the soul of how I earn a living. The only thing is, I'd say the majority of the businesses that I work with are unnecessary. Other than the blue collar workers (plumbers, electricians, etc.), a lot of my client base are white-collar jobs, like insurance brokers and real estate agents. Professions that, with some straight forward online software, don't seem necessary. (Don't get angry at me, you know that the majority of you are just surrogates for a program doing a lot of the heavy lifting.) This [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) sums up my point very well. With exponential automation of jobs in our economy, unemployment will simply grow out of control. I still believe that there will be necessary jobs, but considering that capitalism relies on people spending money and with so little people making money that they can spend, we will need a different system established. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Capitalism will not survive the the next decade. I just don't see a future where our current capitalist system will survive automation. I'm a graphic/web designer, so I work with a lot of businesses to build their brand. Capitalism is the soul of how I earn a living. The only thing is, I'd say the majority of the businesses that I work with are unnecessary. Other than the blue collar workers (plumbers, electricians, etc.), a lot of my client base are white-collar jobs, like insurance brokers and real estate agents. Professions that, with some straight forward online software, don't seem necessary. (Don't get angry at me, you know that the majority of you are just surrogates for a program doing a lot of the heavy lifting.) This [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) sums up my point very well. With exponential automation of jobs in our economy, unemployment will simply grow out of control. I still believe that there will be necessary jobs, but considering that capitalism relies on people spending money and with so little people making money that they can spend, we will need a different system established.

t3_1vtpvr

I think the exam based system we use sets up a bad precedent. CMV.

So, education in this country grades people of ~16+ years old through the use of 2 sets of exams, one in January and the other in May. You are *suppose* to work hard all year long and then revise the work you did. But lets be honest, a high proportion of people take it easy compared to what you are meant to do and then go insane in the last few weeks before, cramming everything they can into that short period. There is no arguing about that. The issue is, after an exam based course or in the real world, it's a lot more about a continual less intense grind. It's like being trained for sprinting when the real challenge will be a marathon. Perhaps more coursework based systems or a more spread out exam system would be better, I don't know. But I don't think the mad 2-3 week rush is a good way for people to be taught, even if it is more convenient. Please explain to me why it is an appropriate way to rank people on their ability to work in the real world over a more frequent and less intense examination system.

I think the exam based system we use sets up a bad precedent. CMV. So, education in this country grades people of ~16+ years old through the use of 2 sets of exams, one in January and the other in May. You are *suppose* to work hard all year long and then revise the work you did. But lets be honest, a high proportion of people take it easy compared to what you are meant to do and then go insane in the last few weeks before, cramming everything they can into that short period. There is no arguing about that. The issue is, after an exam based course or in the real world, it's a lot more about a continual less intense grind. It's like being trained for sprinting when the real challenge will be a marathon. Perhaps more coursework based systems or a more spread out exam system would be better, I don't know. But I don't think the mad 2-3 week rush is a good way for people to be taught, even if it is more convenient. Please explain to me why it is an appropriate way to rank people on their ability to work in the real world over a more frequent and less intense examination system.

t3_1md6nc

I don't believe a universal basic income could work. Please CMV.

From a moral standpoint, I really like the idea of a universal basic income, but I don't see how it could work without causing an inflationary spiral. If everyone had a basic income, they wouldn't have to work to survive, which means you would have to pay them more to get them to do something they don't want to do. In addition, paying for a basic income would require some fairly major taxes of some form or another. This is going to drive up the price of labor, which will also drive up the price of goods, which means that suddenly your old basic income isn't enough to live on anymore. I'm aware that basic incomes have been successfully tried on a small scale before, but a small scale isn't going to lead to an inflationary spiral. Can someone explain to me how this could work on a national scale?

I don't believe a universal basic income could work. Please CMV. From a moral standpoint, I really like the idea of a universal basic income, but I don't see how it could work without causing an inflationary spiral. If everyone had a basic income, they wouldn't have to work to survive, which means you would have to pay them more to get them to do something they don't want to do. In addition, paying for a basic income would require some fairly major taxes of some form or another. This is going to drive up the price of labor, which will also drive up the price of goods, which means that suddenly your old basic income isn't enough to live on anymore. I'm aware that basic incomes have been successfully tried on a small scale before, but a small scale isn't going to lead to an inflationary spiral. Can someone explain to me how this could work on a national scale?

t3_6xmlny

CMV - I should not go to Iran because as a young female, I would be made to feel uncomfortable.

My partner wants to go to Iran for a week and is trying to convince me it's a good holiday destination for culture and history. I don't doubt this. However I'm under the impression that women in Iran are viewed as second class citizens which does not sit well with me. First of all, I've never properly visited the middle east and my knowledge of Iran is limited, so I'd love to be proven wrong on any of my points. From asking some friends and family and looking around a little on the web, it's my understanding that I will be expected to wear clothes outside of my comfort zone (covering my legs/head in the heat does not sound fun), will not be able to hug/kiss my boyfriend in public without potentially offending locals (not that I'll particularly want to but i would like the choice to do so without having to worry about doing so without thinking) and may get treated in a way different to what I am used to simply because I am a woman. My motive for not going is fed both by a morality point of view (I strongly disagree with the way women are still not seen as equals and by visting the country and funding them via tourism I am somehow endorsing this) and from a comfort point of view (I want to relax on holiday and don't want to have to worry about whether what I'm doing or saying is upsetting people). CMV! EDIT: If it makes a difference, I am a white British female and my partner is a white Jewish male. EDIT 2: My mind hasn't been this stimulated in quite a while - thanks everyone! It's bed time for me but I'd love to continue the discussion tomorrow. I've definitely had my mind opened a bit more to the idea of going. Thanks all, night night!

CMV - I should not go to Iran because as a young female, I would be made to feel uncomfortable. My partner wants to go to Iran for a week and is trying to convince me it's a good holiday destination for culture and history. I don't doubt this. However I'm under the impression that women in Iran are viewed as second class citizens which does not sit well with me. First of all, I've never properly visited the middle east and my knowledge of Iran is limited, so I'd love to be proven wrong on any of my points. From asking some friends and family and looking around a little on the web, it's my understanding that I will be expected to wear clothes outside of my comfort zone (covering my legs/head in the heat does not sound fun), will not be able to hug/kiss my boyfriend in public without potentially offending locals (not that I'll particularly want to but i would like the choice to do so without having to worry about doing so without thinking) and may get treated in a way different to what I am used to simply because I am a woman. My motive for not going is fed both by a morality point of view (I strongly disagree with the way women are still not seen as equals and by visting the country and funding them via tourism I am somehow endorsing this) and from a comfort point of view (I want to relax on holiday and don't want to have to worry about whether what I'm doing or saying is upsetting people). CMV! EDIT: If it makes a difference, I am a white British female and my partner is a white Jewish male. EDIT 2: My mind hasn't been this stimulated in quite a while - thanks everyone! It's bed time for me but I'd love to continue the discussion tomorrow. I've definitely had my mind opened a bit more to the idea of going. Thanks all, night night!

t3_2kpcya

CMV: Amy Poehler only gets attention (SNL anchor, Parks and Rec show, award show host) because she dyed her hair blonde. Brunnette Amy Poehler would have remained in relative obscurity.

She dyed her hair halfway through her tenure at SNL. I immediately thought "she looks better now and less homely." But all of sudden she began getting more attention and more roles. And the roles didn't really revolve around great comedy or great acting or even anything that was her signature. In Parks n Rec she was just copying Steve Carrell. Her and Tina Fey's shtick is fine, but she can't/doesn't perform without her. In essence, Amy Poehler is just the same plain actor/comedian as on SNL but all of sudden people liked her better because of the hair change.

CMV: Amy Poehler only gets attention (SNL anchor, Parks and Rec show, award show host) because she dyed her hair blonde. Brunnette Amy Poehler would have remained in relative obscurity. She dyed her hair halfway through her tenure at SNL. I immediately thought "she looks better now and less homely." But all of sudden she began getting more attention and more roles. And the roles didn't really revolve around great comedy or great acting or even anything that was her signature. In Parks n Rec she was just copying Steve Carrell. Her and Tina Fey's shtick is fine, but she can't/doesn't perform without her. In essence, Amy Poehler is just the same plain actor/comedian as on SNL but all of sudden people liked her better because of the hair change.

t3_1s8fxh

Racial slurs aren't worse than regular insults. CMV

I'm a black guy, and i've been called a nigger, jigaboo, coon, porch monkey, etc., and it doesn't hold much weight as an insult because what I am, rather than who I am, is being attacked. If someone is insulting another person because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else they can't control, it's less offensive than insulting someone's character and the choices they make, such as demeaning someone for liking a certain type of food, enjoying a certain activity, or liking a certain genre of music. You can't control these things, so the derogation of them is baseless because your character is all that matters. Note that i'm only talking about slurs, and not things such as violence or denying someone something based on How they were born.

Racial slurs aren't worse than regular insults. CMV. I'm a black guy, and i've been called a nigger, jigaboo, coon, porch monkey, etc., and it doesn't hold much weight as an insult because what I am, rather than who I am, is being attacked. If someone is insulting another person because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else they can't control, it's less offensive than insulting someone's character and the choices they make, such as demeaning someone for liking a certain type of food, enjoying a certain activity, or liking a certain genre of music. You can't control these things, so the derogation of them is baseless because your character is all that matters. Note that i'm only talking about slurs, and not things such as violence or denying someone something based on How they were born.

t3_1tvixh

I'm convinced that libertarian socialism (anarcho socialism, anarcho syndicalism, etc) is not only the fairest form of socialism but the best system for everyone in general. CMV

It's the only kind of socialism in which the means of production would TRULY belong to the people and thus produce because of necessity and not profit. I also think competitiveness and personal gain could be entirely replaced in favour of the greater good and the desire to improve things for everyone as the driving factors for incentive and innovation. We just need to educate people towards thinking like this this education would require time and it could involve indoctrinating (which I think is done anyways regardless of whatkind of system we hace. I thus think it's possible to get people feel confortably with this new voluntary and egalitarian society and so make them reject past concepts like profit, personal gain, private property and so on to avoid discomfort and stop it from splintering. On the same note, unnecesary consumerism is what is stopping us (among other things) to reach this goal because it distracts people. Everybody wants to buy useless things like iphones or videogame consoles, movies, etc instead of working to get fundamental things. Thus entertainement (and in a way art) should also stop being an institution aimed at profit and become something more personal. Some cool aspects of entertainement and out society would probably fade away, but that doesn't mean we won't enjoy the one's that survived or will surface in this new society. I haven't been an adherent to these thoughts for long, but i haven't found many (if any) criticism on specifically this branch of anarchy or anarchy in general. Just the same story about hoe humans are greedy, selfish, etc. In fact many prominent philosophers, humanists, social scientists, etc seem to support it. And the fact that these people generally think that way makes me think we might be either oppressed by a certain group of people and/or just running astray from ourselves, They seem to be right, yet no one listens to them.

I'm convinced that libertarian socialism (anarcho socialism, anarcho syndicalism, etc) is not only the fairest form of socialism but the best system for everyone in general. CMV. It's the only kind of socialism in which the means of production would TRULY belong to the people and thus produce because of necessity and not profit. I also think competitiveness and personal gain could be entirely replaced in favour of the greater good and the desire to improve things for everyone as the driving factors for incentive and innovation. We just need to educate people towards thinking like this this education would require time and it could involve indoctrinating (which I think is done anyways regardless of whatkind of system we hace. I thus think it's possible to get people feel confortably with this new voluntary and egalitarian society and so make them reject past concepts like profit, personal gain, private property and so on to avoid discomfort and stop it from splintering. On the same note, unnecesary consumerism is what is stopping us (among other things) to reach this goal because it distracts people. Everybody wants to buy useless things like iphones or videogame consoles, movies, etc instead of working to get fundamental things. Thus entertainement (and in a way art) should also stop being an institution aimed at profit and become something more personal. Some cool aspects of entertainement and out society would probably fade away, but that doesn't mean we won't enjoy the one's that survived or will surface in this new society. I haven't been an adherent to these thoughts for long, but i haven't found many (if any) criticism on specifically this branch of anarchy or anarchy in general. Just the same story about hoe humans are greedy, selfish, etc. In fact many prominent philosophers, humanists, social scientists, etc seem to support it. And the fact that these people generally think that way makes me think we might be either oppressed by a certain group of people and/or just running astray from ourselves, They seem to be right, yet no one listens to them.

t3_1efa0c

I believe the government should regulate fast food. CMV

As a major influence in the lives of young adults the fast food industry should organize a regulation food standard for their industry. Their present costumers shall be their future to grow a bigger, better ,complex of food standards helping their costumers live better ,longer,healthy life styles.

I believe the government should regulate fast food. CMV. As a major influence in the lives of young adults the fast food industry should organize a regulation food standard for their industry. Their present costumers shall be their future to grow a bigger, better ,complex of food standards helping their costumers live better ,longer,healthy life styles.

t3_36rkgx

CMV: American public school teachers have lost the power to control their classrooms due to crippling bureaucracy, terrible parenting, legal repercussions, and gutless/careless administrators, and that is a huge problem in our educational system.

My girlfriend's roommate is a Kindergarten teacher in a very large US City who came home practically sobbing because of one of the kids in her class. The kid's mother insists he doesn't act up at home, but the teacher has called her multiple times about her son's behavior. She can't take away recess from kids. She can only send them to the office for 20 minutes at a time. She's not allowed to take pictures or videos of the kids (but she showed us pictures/videos of the kid that day breaking into drawers, throwing stuff, yelling, rolling up carpets, etc). Attempts to discuss the kid with admins are shrugged off. The teacher is very upset because the other kids have complained that they can't learn and some are beginning to follow suit of the shitty kid. I know this is one example, but her school isn't even among the worst, and it isn't as if teachers inability to control students, despite their wishes to, is surprising. We've all heard about terrible parents, helicopters, complaining about grades etc. I've had the fortune of going to private schools my entire life (though perhaps that is more due to growing up in one of the worst public school districts in the country). One of the effects of that is that they could discipline you as they saw fit. If you acted shitty, you missed recess, had to call your parents, had to write on the chalkboard, had to stay in the office, got yelled at, etc. Public schools, of course, are another matter and it seems like teachers, the very people entrusted with educating the future, are powerless to do their jobs properly. So tell me, is our educational system that fucked because of shitty parents, shitty kids, and shitty administrators, or is it really not that bad? CMV. Edit: This was interesting, but prolonged discussion didn't really change anything. The semantics of my view appeared to be discussed more than my view itself or any opposing view. To quote /u/yertles, "Anecdotal evidence trumps no evidence at all. Burden of proof isn't going to change my view." _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: American public school teachers have lost the power to control their classrooms due to crippling bureaucracy, terrible parenting, legal repercussions, and gutless/careless administrators, and that is a huge problem in our educational system. My girlfriend's roommate is a Kindergarten teacher in a very large US City who came home practically sobbing because of one of the kids in her class. The kid's mother insists he doesn't act up at home, but the teacher has called her multiple times about her son's behavior. She can't take away recess from kids. She can only send them to the office for 20 minutes at a time. She's not allowed to take pictures or videos of the kids (but she showed us pictures/videos of the kid that day breaking into drawers, throwing stuff, yelling, rolling up carpets, etc). Attempts to discuss the kid with admins are shrugged off. The teacher is very upset because the other kids have complained that they can't learn and some are beginning to follow suit of the shitty kid. I know this is one example, but her school isn't even among the worst, and it isn't as if teachers inability to control students, despite their wishes to, is surprising. We've all heard about terrible parents, helicopters, complaining about grades etc. I've had the fortune of going to private schools my entire life (though perhaps that is more due to growing up in one of the worst public school districts in the country). One of the effects of that is that they could discipline you as they saw fit. If you acted shitty, you missed recess, had to call your parents, had to write on the chalkboard, had to stay in the office, got yelled at, etc. Public schools, of course, are another matter and it seems like teachers, the very people entrusted with educating the future, are powerless to do their jobs properly. So tell me, is our educational system that fucked because of shitty parents, shitty kids, and shitty administrators, or is it really not that bad? CMV. Edit: This was interesting, but prolonged discussion didn't really change anything. The semantics of my view appeared to be discussed more than my view itself or any opposing view. To quote /u/yertles, "Anecdotal evidence trumps no evidence at all. Burden of proof isn't going to change my view."

t3_1tk2bt

I think that Marijuana is illegal at the federal level for hubris, laziness, selfishness, CMV

In most polls I have seen for the past 20 years, it seems that a majority of Americans feel that marijuana should be legal. Despite American support for drug law reforms, it doesn't seem that federal drug laws have changed much where it counts. Many Americans are still put in jail for marijuana possession across the country. Not only is possession not legal, but recreational use is not legal either. Ironically, medical marijuana is legal is some states. And the marijuana/drug debate has been going on for several decades, possibly longer. It seems that a majority of Americans side with, "I think it should be legal". I have seen very few strong supporters for marijuana to remain illegal. With that, I think politicians at the federal level will want marijuana to remain illegal for these reasons: And it may remain this way for several years or decades despite the American opinion: * Hubris: If the federal government will stop arresting and detaining people for drug violations, then they will have to admit that all the past laws on drug laws were wrong. Why is a person arrested in 1990 for marijuana possession but in 2014, that person will not be arrested> And then, what do you do with all past arrest? Do you let all of those people go? * Laziness: This ties into my first point. How do you change the law with the least impact/amount of changes? Do you let millions out of jail? Do you setup new laws allowing for the sale of marijuana? What do you do with the DEA? There would be a lot of reform and maybe the politicians don't want to put the effort in and not see the personal gain. * Selfishness: For the politician, is a pro-marijuana legalization platform beneficial? Politicians like Ron Paul had very strong positions, "the drug war is a failure", he got many votes from young people but not as much support across the board.

I think that Marijuana is illegal at the federal level for hubris, laziness, selfishness, CMV. In most polls I have seen for the past 20 years, it seems that a majority of Americans feel that marijuana should be legal. Despite American support for drug law reforms, it doesn't seem that federal drug laws have changed much where it counts. Many Americans are still put in jail for marijuana possession across the country. Not only is possession not legal, but recreational use is not legal either. Ironically, medical marijuana is legal is some states. And the marijuana/drug debate has been going on for several decades, possibly longer. It seems that a majority of Americans side with, "I think it should be legal". I have seen very few strong supporters for marijuana to remain illegal. With that, I think politicians at the federal level will want marijuana to remain illegal for these reasons: And it may remain this way for several years or decades despite the American opinion: * Hubris: If the federal government will stop arresting and detaining people for drug violations, then they will have to admit that all the past laws on drug laws were wrong. Why is a person arrested in 1990 for marijuana possession but in 2014, that person will not be arrested> And then, what do you do with all past arrest? Do you let all of those people go? * Laziness: This ties into my first point. How do you change the law with the least impact/amount of changes? Do you let millions out of jail? Do you setup new laws allowing for the sale of marijuana? What do you do with the DEA? There would be a lot of reform and maybe the politicians don't want to put the effort in and not see the personal gain. * Selfishness: For the politician, is a pro-marijuana legalization platform beneficial? Politicians like Ron Paul had very strong positions, "the drug war is a failure", he got many votes from young people but not as much support across the board.

t3_1byeix

I know the majority of reddit is "against" religion and I am a Christian, but...

I believe that both atheisA and Christianity take faith and have no "hardcore" evidence. Don't get me wrong, I do believe Bible has some geographic evidence, but there's no solid guarantees that I'm right. I also don't believe there are any facts that prove evolution is right too. CMV?

I know the majority of reddit is "against" religion and I am a Christian, but... I believe that both atheisA and Christianity take faith and have no "hardcore" evidence. Don't get me wrong, I do believe Bible has some geographic evidence, but there's no solid guarantees that I'm right. I also don't believe there are any facts that prove evolution is right too. CMV?

t3_1ikccn

I dont think addicts should get as much sympathy as they do. CMV.

Whenever I hear/see people giving *so* much sympathy to addicts I get somewhat pissed off. I dont think that addicts should be considered the helpless victims society seems to make them out to be. I believe this because I see addicts as weak-spirited, and stupid for doing drugs without understanding how weak-spirited they apparently are. I think if you do a drug without knowing youll be able to not get addicted, you probably deserve the addiction (when I say they deserve it, I mean it in a cause/effect type way not in a grand moral type way) I should point out that I have done many drugs myself (hence the throwaway). I have done cocaine, meth, MDMA, mushrooms, ecstasy, and a several others. The only drugs I "do" now are alcohol and marijuana. I did each knowing the potential consequences, and knowing I would have to exercise self-control. I should also point out that I am not against treating addicts. I just dont like the way society ignores, what I believe to be, the fact that addicts/alcoholics/etc. are weak-spirited. I understand how life-ruining addiction can be to both the addicts and the people they know and so, even though Im thoroughly convinced addicts are a combination of stupid and weak, I feel kind of bad about it. So CMV.

I dont think addicts should get as much sympathy as they do. CMV. Whenever I hear/see people giving *so* much sympathy to addicts I get somewhat pissed off. I dont think that addicts should be considered the helpless victims society seems to make them out to be. I believe this because I see addicts as weak-spirited, and stupid for doing drugs without understanding how weak-spirited they apparently are. I think if you do a drug without knowing youll be able to not get addicted, you probably deserve the addiction (when I say they deserve it, I mean it in a cause/effect type way not in a grand moral type way) I should point out that I have done many drugs myself (hence the throwaway). I have done cocaine, meth, MDMA, mushrooms, ecstasy, and a several others. The only drugs I "do" now are alcohol and marijuana. I did each knowing the potential consequences, and knowing I would have to exercise self-control. I should also point out that I am not against treating addicts. I just dont like the way society ignores, what I believe to be, the fact that addicts/alcoholics/etc. are weak-spirited. I understand how life-ruining addiction can be to both the addicts and the people they know and so, even though Im thoroughly convinced addicts are a combination of stupid and weak, I feel kind of bad about it. So CMV.

t3_1da9km

I think Google is dangerously large and powerful, and should be avoided. CMV

Really, change my view. I want to love Google, but it intimidates me with how much bad potential it has. The idea that someone, somewhere, has more data on me than I'll ever know is scary. But I admit that they have some really great things to offer. So convince me why I should get over my paranoia of Google.

I think Google is dangerously large and powerful, and should be avoided. CMV. Really, change my view. I want to love Google, but it intimidates me with how much bad potential it has. The idea that someone, somewhere, has more data on me than I'll ever know is scary. But I admit that they have some really great things to offer. So convince me why I should get over my paranoia of Google.

t3_2cl4w8

CMV: Interviewees should never say "again..." when repeating an answer. It wastes even more time calling attention to the repetitiveness.

Instead they should find a new angle on the subject or find some way to supply fresh information, even if they have to largely ignore the question and answer the one they wish they asked. The viewer's time should not be wasted. Saying "again..." in an interview is particularly grating because it feels like a criticism of the question. I tune in to learn about the subject, not to witness disharmony grow between the parties. That just makes me tense. The worst case is when politicians do it to repeat a talking point. Then it distracts the viewers while evading the question.

CMV: Interviewees should never say "again..." when repeating an answer. It wastes even more time calling attention to the repetitiveness. Instead they should find a new angle on the subject or find some way to supply fresh information, even if they have to largely ignore the question and answer the one they wish they asked. The viewer's time should not be wasted. Saying "again..." in an interview is particularly grating because it feels like a criticism of the question. I tune in to learn about the subject, not to witness disharmony grow between the parties. That just makes me tense. The worst case is when politicians do it to repeat a talking point. Then it distracts the viewers while evading the question.

t3_29zu5g

CMV: I think the TSA is useful in the modern day.

First of all, very first of all, us people are very greedy. We like to scrimp if we can, so we can pocket the difference. $8B, according to Forbes is its budget. If it was so useless, or even if Congress felt they could get away without it, they would immediately remove it. $8B more! They'd raise their pay! But they don't. Why wouldn't they? Because they think it serves some sort of purpose, and I am assuming it is the one of protecting the USA. Secondly, it is evolving. You have seen new security measures every year and while yes, they are annoying, they may have potentially saved your life. How's that for throwing away 500ml of water and standing in queue for 30min? I can see that many people in reddit disagree with this, however, and I want to know why, so I can form a balanced opinion. So CMV!

CMV: I think the TSA is useful in the modern day. First of all, very first of all, us people are very greedy. We like to scrimp if we can, so we can pocket the difference. $8B, according to Forbes is its budget. If it was so useless, or even if Congress felt they could get away without it, they would immediately remove it. $8B more! They'd raise their pay! But they don't. Why wouldn't they? Because they think it serves some sort of purpose, and I am assuming it is the one of protecting the USA. Secondly, it is evolving. You have seen new security measures every year and while yes, they are annoying, they may have potentially saved your life. How's that for throwing away 500ml of water and standing in queue for 30min? I can see that many people in reddit disagree with this, however, and I want to know why, so I can form a balanced opinion. So CMV!

t3_1g2y7p

I believe that any parent that finds out their fetus has down syndrome or any other sort of serious disability should be forced to abort. CMV

I have an autistic second cousin. She is in her mid thirties now, and still lives with her parents. She does not have a job or any friends of her own. All she does is sit in her parents house and play video games. I know she has a disability, but she is extremely difficult to be around. She is very rude and constantly says the most unimaginable and hurtful things. She also get violent when she doesn't get her way. Her parents love her, but you get the sense that they would not wish their lives on anyone else. Her parents are both in their 70s. My great aunt had to quit her career as a journalist to care for her daughter. The daughter cannot live on her own. She is helpless. The whole family has isolated themselves from friends, and family. My great uncle has been battling cancer on and off for many years. The talk in the family is that he does not have much time left. My aunt is obese and diabetic. I can see her health beginning to falter as well. When they pass on what will happen to my second cousin? None of my family wants to deal with her or take care of her. I think it would be kind of selfish to dump her on someone. I think that everyone involved in the situation wishes that my second cousin never existed. I know my great aunt and uncle love her, but I think they feel the same way. There are some people that are not meant to function in this world. They use up time, money, and resources that could be spent more productively. I can understand a parent wanting to take care of their disabled child, but that parent won't be around forever. I have fairly pessimistic views on the world. I think morals are relative. I don't see life as something extremely sacred that must be protected at all costs. I think people should do things that help themselves, or society. Including making tough decisions to better the lives of the people around them. So CMV.

I believe that any parent that finds out their fetus has down syndrome or any other sort of serious disability should be forced to abort. CMV. I have an autistic second cousin. She is in her mid thirties now, and still lives with her parents. She does not have a job or any friends of her own. All she does is sit in her parents house and play video games. I know she has a disability, but she is extremely difficult to be around. She is very rude and constantly says the most unimaginable and hurtful things. She also get violent when she doesn't get her way. Her parents love her, but you get the sense that they would not wish their lives on anyone else. Her parents are both in their 70s. My great aunt had to quit her career as a journalist to care for her daughter. The daughter cannot live on her own. She is helpless. The whole family has isolated themselves from friends, and family. My great uncle has been battling cancer on and off for many years. The talk in the family is that he does not have much time left. My aunt is obese and diabetic. I can see her health beginning to falter as well. When they pass on what will happen to my second cousin? None of my family wants to deal with her or take care of her. I think it would be kind of selfish to dump her on someone. I think that everyone involved in the situation wishes that my second cousin never existed. I know my great aunt and uncle love her, but I think they feel the same way. There are some people that are not meant to function in this world. They use up time, money, and resources that could be spent more productively. I can understand a parent wanting to take care of their disabled child, but that parent won't be around forever. I have fairly pessimistic views on the world. I think morals are relative. I don't see life as something extremely sacred that must be protected at all costs. I think people should do things that help themselves, or society. Including making tough decisions to better the lives of the people around them. So CMV.

t3_6c62pd

CMV: We should not send foreign aid to countries that have a space program

I'm a big science advocate and I really do think we need several space programs around the world with countries competing with one another, but countries that receive foreign aid should not have a space program. The money could be spent far better on bettering the lives of the citizens of that country such as improving infrastructure, reducing corruption and improving health and safety of workers. I will be using India as an example as it has one of the biggest space agencies. [It has a budgent of $1.4 billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organisation) and yet the US sent India [$65.1 billion from 1946-2012](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/India-top-recipient-of-US-economic-aid/articleshow/48093123.cms) and the UK sent [£150 million in just 2015](https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-aid/) and India recieved [$2.47 billion from everyone in 2013](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD?end=2013&locations=IN&name_desc=false&start=2012). With the number increasing. This is when[ 170 million people live in poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India) and [there is massive wealth inequality](http://www.thehindu.com/data/indias-staggering-wealth-gap-in-five-charts/article6672115.ece). Again, I'm not anti science or anti space but I think it would be best for countries like India to spend the money on improving the lives of the citizens and leave having a space program to counties like the US and large successful economic bodies like the EU that don't receive foreign aid. Looking forward to discussing this with you, thank you! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We should not send foreign aid to countries that have a space program. I'm a big science advocate and I really do think we need several space programs around the world with countries competing with one another, but countries that receive foreign aid should not have a space program. The money could be spent far better on bettering the lives of the citizens of that country such as improving infrastructure, reducing corruption and improving health and safety of workers. I will be using India as an example as it has one of the biggest space agencies. [It has a budgent of $1.4 billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organisation) and yet the US sent India [$65.1 billion from 1946-2012](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/India-top-recipient-of-US-economic-aid/articleshow/48093123.cms) and the UK sent [£150 million in just 2015](https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-aid/) and India recieved [$2.47 billion from everyone in 2013](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD?end=2013&locations=IN&name_desc=false&start=2012). With the number increasing. This is when[ 170 million people live in poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India) and [there is massive wealth inequality](http://www.thehindu.com/data/indias-staggering-wealth-gap-in-five-charts/article6672115.ece). Again, I'm not anti science or anti space but I think it would be best for countries like India to spend the money on improving the lives of the citizens and leave having a space program to counties like the US and large successful economic bodies like the EU that don't receive foreign aid. Looking forward to discussing this with you, thank you!

t3_1egn95

I care more about the lives of poachers than I do about the survival of endangered species CMV

In fact I don't really care about the lives of Animals in general. I feel very strongly about violations concerning Human rights, but I feel next to nothing when I learn that X species has gone extinct. But I am ready to change.

I care more about the lives of poachers than I do about the survival of endangered species CMV. In fact I don't really care about the lives of Animals in general. I feel very strongly about violations concerning Human rights, but I feel next to nothing when I learn that X species has gone extinct. But I am ready to change.

t3_2434rg

CMV: I believe that the legal trouble The Pirate Bay is in, is just and it is stupid to protest and support them.

EDIT: I am primarily concerned with the morality of the issue not so much the laws as those much more than morality does across the world. First of all let me start off by saying I don't support the government controlling and monitoring the internet nor do I believe that the current copyright laws are completely applicable to modern day society. However I do believe that copyright is a good thing. As it protects peoples intellectual property. And allows them to be rewarded for their hard work, ideas and creations. Firstly, I know for a fact most people at one point or another have downloaded something illegally whether it be a game, movie, book, show or song. A lot of people continue to do so. Knowing full well of what they are doing. Now moving on I believe that all the legal trouble the founders of TPB are in is justified. What they do is clearly illegal and wrong. They host millions of illegal files of other peoples creations and property that they worked hard on to create with no intentions of helping or paying said creators/owners. My view on the matter is, fine if your going to download illegal torrents go for it I am not judging. But at least own up to what you're doing, and not try to make excuses for it, it is a crime. Don't go around parading and shouting about, that your trying to "change the world for the better" and "the government is evil" or "fuck the police". TPB founders are in legal trouble because they committed a crime, solicitation of stolen property on a massive scale probably totaling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stolen property. To me they should have seen it coming and it baffles me when you see things on the news about people signing petitions and massive protests demanding that they be set free and all charges dropped and that they did nothing wrong. Stealing is wrong and downloading copyrighted material is wrong, and if your going to do it for whatever reason acknowledge that is wrong at the very least. So if you disagree go ahead an try and change my view.

CMV: I believe that the legal trouble The Pirate Bay is in, is just and it is stupid to protest and support them. EDIT: I am primarily concerned with the morality of the issue not so much the laws as those much more than morality does across the world. First of all let me start off by saying I don't support the government controlling and monitoring the internet nor do I believe that the current copyright laws are completely applicable to modern day society. However I do believe that copyright is a good thing. As it protects peoples intellectual property. And allows them to be rewarded for their hard work, ideas and creations. Firstly, I know for a fact most people at one point or another have downloaded something illegally whether it be a game, movie, book, show or song. A lot of people continue to do so. Knowing full well of what they are doing. Now moving on I believe that all the legal trouble the founders of TPB are in is justified. What they do is clearly illegal and wrong. They host millions of illegal files of other peoples creations and property that they worked hard on to create with no intentions of helping or paying said creators/owners. My view on the matter is, fine if your going to download illegal torrents go for it I am not judging. But at least own up to what you're doing, and not try to make excuses for it, it is a crime. Don't go around parading and shouting about, that your trying to "change the world for the better" and "the government is evil" or "fuck the police". TPB founders are in legal trouble because they committed a crime, solicitation of stolen property on a massive scale probably totaling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stolen property. To me they should have seen it coming and it baffles me when you see things on the news about people signing petitions and massive protests demanding that they be set free and all charges dropped and that they did nothing wrong. Stealing is wrong and downloading copyrighted material is wrong, and if your going to do it for whatever reason acknowledge that is wrong at the very least. So if you disagree go ahead an try and change my view.

t3_2pzl95

CMV: There is no point in talking to the opposite sex unless you want them to be your friend.

First, I'd like to point out that I am not an MRA or a feminist. I really don't subscribe to any gender or political ideology whatsoever. I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. Scientists have found a way for women to go through artificial insemination, so I don't think either sex has any use for the other besides a friendship if you actually have something in common. Sex is cool also, but I think society will eventually allow prostitution, so emotional connection will be worthless. I just think women and men are too different and cause more issues between each other than what it's worth. The structural anatomy of each sexes brain is so different that the only reason they engage deeply with each other is to procreate, and that will be meaningless once artificial insemination happens. I think our tax dollars are going to waste towards subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of "young love" (whatever the fuck that means). When people marry each other out of young love, they often don't see how the other truly is. I think the world would be better off financially and emotionally without deep engagement with the opposite sex. Edit: when I say "talking", I mean flirting to get in a deep relationship with.

CMV: There is no point in talking to the opposite sex unless you want them to be your friend. First, I'd like to point out that I am not an MRA or a feminist. I really don't subscribe to any gender or political ideology whatsoever. I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. Scientists have found a way for women to go through artificial insemination, so I don't think either sex has any use for the other besides a friendship if you actually have something in common. Sex is cool also, but I think society will eventually allow prostitution, so emotional connection will be worthless. I just think women and men are too different and cause more issues between each other than what it's worth. The structural anatomy of each sexes brain is so different that the only reason they engage deeply with each other is to procreate, and that will be meaningless once artificial insemination happens. I think our tax dollars are going to waste towards subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of "young love" (whatever the fuck that means). When people marry each other out of young love, they often don't see how the other truly is. I think the world would be better off financially and emotionally without deep engagement with the opposite sex. Edit: when I say "talking", I mean flirting to get in a deep relationship with.

t3_2d6lsa

CMV: Separation referenda in countries with stable democracies are bad ideas

In this, I am particularly looking at two recent cases where a separation referendum has been or will be brought to voters: Scotland and Quebec. My point centers around the idea that federalism or devolution provides a sufficient avenue for local control of local matters, and that as long as national parties seek and obtain support within the jurisdiction of the area to secede, there is not a strong case that the people there are failing to be represented at the national level. In the case of Quebec, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all actively seek (and often win) seats in Quebec ridings. Many prime ministers hail from Quebec, including both Liberals (lots) and Conservatives (Mulroney - but they've also not had a lot of PMs) The current Liberal and NDP leaders hail from Quebec ridings. In the case of Scotland (which I am admittedly not as familiar with, not having lived there), the national parties do campaign there, and while the Conservatives haven't had a lot of success there to put it charitably, there doesn't seem to be the kind of evidence of regional balkanization one would see if Scottish interests were truly divergent from those of the rest of the UK. Of course there are long histories as to how both Quebec and Scotland came to be a part of the UK and Canada respectively, but where, as here, citizens in Quebec and Scotland have meaningful representation in national parties, are accorded representation proportionate to their population, and are fully equal under the law to all other citizens, I don't see the case for carving out new nation-states. All borders are artifacts of history, many of those histories full of evil. But when a country is free and democratic, and where there are strong local institutions with broad capacity to deal with local problems, I don't see the case for carving up borders. So to CMV, I want a good reason why a country with the following would be better off splitting in two: 1. National parties compete meaningfully and represent districts from the area to secede. 2. Local government which has meaningful authority over a broad range of areas (obv not all areas like foreign policy). 3. Free, fair and democratic elections. 4. Fully equal status under the law for all people from the region to secede as compared to all other people in the country. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Separation referenda in countries with stable democracies are bad ideas. In this, I am particularly looking at two recent cases where a separation referendum has been or will be brought to voters: Scotland and Quebec. My point centers around the idea that federalism or devolution provides a sufficient avenue for local control of local matters, and that as long as national parties seek and obtain support within the jurisdiction of the area to secede, there is not a strong case that the people there are failing to be represented at the national level. In the case of Quebec, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all actively seek (and often win) seats in Quebec ridings. Many prime ministers hail from Quebec, including both Liberals (lots) and Conservatives (Mulroney - but they've also not had a lot of PMs) The current Liberal and NDP leaders hail from Quebec ridings. In the case of Scotland (which I am admittedly not as familiar with, not having lived there), the national parties do campaign there, and while the Conservatives haven't had a lot of success there to put it charitably, there doesn't seem to be the kind of evidence of regional balkanization one would see if Scottish interests were truly divergent from those of the rest of the UK. Of course there are long histories as to how both Quebec and Scotland came to be a part of the UK and Canada respectively, but where, as here, citizens in Quebec and Scotland have meaningful representation in national parties, are accorded representation proportionate to their population, and are fully equal under the law to all other citizens, I don't see the case for carving out new nation-states. All borders are artifacts of history, many of those histories full of evil. But when a country is free and democratic, and where there are strong local institutions with broad capacity to deal with local problems, I don't see the case for carving up borders. So to CMV, I want a good reason why a country with the following would be better off splitting in two: 1. National parties compete meaningfully and represent districts from the area to secede. 2. Local government which has meaningful authority over a broad range of areas (obv not all areas like foreign policy). 3. Free, fair and democratic elections. 4. Fully equal status under the law for all people from the region to secede as compared to all other people in the country.

t3_6ubdca

CMV: Justice Gorsuch is violating judicial ethics principles by appearing at an event at a Trump hotel.

Justice Gorsuch [is scheduled to headline an event being held by a nonprofit at the Trump hotel in DC this fall.](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/17/neil-gorsuch-trump-hotel-event-241738) Supreme Court justices speaking to nonprofits and headlining such events is not a new thing, and so if he were just doing so anywhere else, it would be no big deal. I do think it is improper for him to do so at the Trump international hotel. In particular, for the reasons I lay out below, I think that were he subject to them, it would violate the [Canons of Judicial Ethics.](http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges) This is for several reasons: 1. The use of the Trump hotel by the nonprofit Fund for American Studies may be reasonably seen as an attempt to curry favor by the group with the President, and abetting such favor-currying is a violation of Canon 2(b) 2. The Trump hotel is a for-profit entity whose profits [ultimately accrue personally to the pocket of the President of the United States.](http://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522511211/change-to-president-trumps-trust-lets-him-tap-business-profits) Justice Gorsuch, as a Supreme Court Justice, lends enormous credibility and desiribility to attending the luncheon, and greatly increases the price of tickets that can be charged, and therefore the ability and willingness of the nonprofit to pay for a space in the [much more expensive than competitors](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dc-hotel-turns-2-million-profit-in-four-months/2017/08/10/23bd97f0-7e02-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.4646e4e2312e) Trump hotel. Because of this, his attendance personally accrues profit to a person who is a party in litigation before his court right now, and who will forseeably be a party in many instances of future litigation. As such, this creates an appearance of impropriety in violation of Canon 2(a). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Justice Gorsuch is violating judicial ethics principles by appearing at an event at a Trump hotel. Justice Gorsuch [is scheduled to headline an event being held by a nonprofit at the Trump hotel in DC this fall.](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/17/neil-gorsuch-trump-hotel-event-241738) Supreme Court justices speaking to nonprofits and headlining such events is not a new thing, and so if he were just doing so anywhere else, it would be no big deal. I do think it is improper for him to do so at the Trump international hotel. In particular, for the reasons I lay out below, I think that were he subject to them, it would violate the [Canons of Judicial Ethics.](http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges) This is for several reasons: 1. The use of the Trump hotel by the nonprofit Fund for American Studies may be reasonably seen as an attempt to curry favor by the group with the President, and abetting such favor-currying is a violation of Canon 2(b) 2. The Trump hotel is a for-profit entity whose profits [ultimately accrue personally to the pocket of the President of the United States.](http://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522511211/change-to-president-trumps-trust-lets-him-tap-business-profits) Justice Gorsuch, as a Supreme Court Justice, lends enormous credibility and desiribility to attending the luncheon, and greatly increases the price of tickets that can be charged, and therefore the ability and willingness of the nonprofit to pay for a space in the [much more expensive than competitors](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dc-hotel-turns-2-million-profit-in-four-months/2017/08/10/23bd97f0-7e02-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.4646e4e2312e) Trump hotel. Because of this, his attendance personally accrues profit to a person who is a party in litigation before his court right now, and who will forseeably be a party in many instances of future litigation. As such, this creates an appearance of impropriety in violation of Canon 2(a).

t3_50pzot

CMV: The invisible hand isn't a valid argument in economics.

So, for the uninitiated, the invisible hand is a term coined to describe the idea that the companies that make the products people want or that have the highest quality of product will succeed while companies that don't will fail. This seems to be a ridiculous idea to me, because it makes two basic assumptions that don't stand up to critic. 1) We, as consumers will always choose the best product. People regret their decisions. People make poor decisions. It's not possible for us to always buy what we want, so we settle. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the best marketed products will succeed? 2) Companies won't make money if they don't follow make the best product or offer the best service. This isn't the case. A clear demonstration of this is the fact that Comcast is still in business. They pretty much have a monopoly on internet connections in some areas of the United States, and around the turn of the century many businesses got away with horrible quality of products because they had a monopoly on their product (ex. the meatpacking industry, the oil industry, the railroad industry.) So doesn't the poor choices of consumers, aggressive marketing by businesses, and monopolies point to a deep flaw in the invisible hand argument? I will concede that in come industries, it is very good at regulating market (ex. entertainment, fashion, food, etc) but maybe it should be viewed as more as a guideline rather than as the seemingly ironclad rule I've seen it presented as? If I'm wrong about anything or am missing critical information, please let me know. I am a beginner in economics and I'm trying to learn. Thanks! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The invisible hand isn't a valid argument in economics. So, for the uninitiated, the invisible hand is a term coined to describe the idea that the companies that make the products people want or that have the highest quality of product will succeed while companies that don't will fail. This seems to be a ridiculous idea to me, because it makes two basic assumptions that don't stand up to critic. 1) We, as consumers will always choose the best product. People regret their decisions. People make poor decisions. It's not possible for us to always buy what we want, so we settle. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the best marketed products will succeed? 2) Companies won't make money if they don't follow make the best product or offer the best service. This isn't the case. A clear demonstration of this is the fact that Comcast is still in business. They pretty much have a monopoly on internet connections in some areas of the United States, and around the turn of the century many businesses got away with horrible quality of products because they had a monopoly on their product (ex. the meatpacking industry, the oil industry, the railroad industry.) So doesn't the poor choices of consumers, aggressive marketing by businesses, and monopolies point to a deep flaw in the invisible hand argument? I will concede that in come industries, it is very good at regulating market (ex. entertainment, fashion, food, etc) but maybe it should be viewed as more as a guideline rather than as the seemingly ironclad rule I've seen it presented as? If I'm wrong about anything or am missing critical information, please let me know. I am a beginner in economics and I'm trying to learn. Thanks!

t3_2n4pya

CMV: Any country can become much safer if the government maintains a level of surveillance over its citizens, and destroying things like "Tor" would bring much more good to society than bad.

Hey guys, I know that my title probably made a lot of you fume. I don't mean to offend anybody, this is just my personal belief. Try to bear with me. I think that governments should maintain what I like to call a healthy level of surveillance over its people. This means that everybody's information should be accessible by the government, however, the government should only conduct searches with *good reason.* I don't mind the government having access to my personal details, so as long as it means I am safer. I think that so as long as you aren't up to anything illegal... the surveillance really shouldn't bother you, anyway. Many tragic events could have been prevented if the government had been able to access personal information. Too many to count. I did a little research on the dark web, deep net, whatever you want to call it. I suppose if you give humanity a mask, you see humanity unmasked... Child porn, rape porn, every weapon you can imagine, assassins, credit card hackers, identity theft, pretty much anything and everything terrible exists on the deep web. Things like Tor may have some good uses, but they enable some horrible, horrible things. If Tor was destroyed entirely, made unusable, it would prevent so many unspeakable things from happening to people. It would also cause the demand and therefore the sales of these horrible things to plummet. I would have no problem with things like Tor if they had regulations and restrictions. Tor and things of the like allow, well, anything. Murder, rape, human trafficking, the molestation of children, God knows what else. Why does nobody speak up about it? Because, well, MUH PRIVACY RIGHTS!! All in all, I think that if the government maintains a level of surveillance, the nation would be a lot more secure. I also think that Tor is mostly horrendous, with some good use here and there.

CMV: Any country can become much safer if the government maintains a level of surveillance over its citizens, and destroying things like "Tor" would bring much more good to society than bad. Hey guys, I know that my title probably made a lot of you fume. I don't mean to offend anybody, this is just my personal belief. Try to bear with me. I think that governments should maintain what I like to call a healthy level of surveillance over its people. This means that everybody's information should be accessible by the government, however, the government should only conduct searches with *good reason.* I don't mind the government having access to my personal details, so as long as it means I am safer. I think that so as long as you aren't up to anything illegal... the surveillance really shouldn't bother you, anyway. Many tragic events could have been prevented if the government had been able to access personal information. Too many to count. I did a little research on the dark web, deep net, whatever you want to call it. I suppose if you give humanity a mask, you see humanity unmasked... Child porn, rape porn, every weapon you can imagine, assassins, credit card hackers, identity theft, pretty much anything and everything terrible exists on the deep web. Things like Tor may have some good uses, but they enable some horrible, horrible things. If Tor was destroyed entirely, made unusable, it would prevent so many unspeakable things from happening to people. It would also cause the demand and therefore the sales of these horrible things to plummet. I would have no problem with things like Tor if they had regulations and restrictions. Tor and things of the like allow, well, anything. Murder, rape, human trafficking, the molestation of children, God knows what else. Why does nobody speak up about it? Because, well, MUH PRIVACY RIGHTS!! All in all, I think that if the government maintains a level of surveillance, the nation would be a lot more secure. I also think that Tor is mostly horrendous, with some good use here and there.

t3_20dnwf

I think Mormons are either ignorant, or masters of Confirmation Bias. CMV.

I think, given the sheer amount of evidence (historical, and scientific) against the claims of The Book of Mormon, such as black people are the product of a curse, native Americans are descendants of Israelite people that sailed to the Americas, and the obvious mistranslations of ancient Egyptian texts. The incredible *lack* of evidence for the stories and claims of the Book of Mormon, such as stories of huge civilizations and battles, deaths in the hundreds of thousands and use of steel weapons. The history of the church, and the history of Joseph Smith as a conman and polygamist who slept with children as young as 14, should be enough to convince any open-minded, critical thinker that the Mormon church is not only false, but demonstrably false, and a fabrication of Joseph Smith.

I think Mormons are either ignorant, or masters of Confirmation Bias. CMV. I think, given the sheer amount of evidence (historical, and scientific) against the claims of The Book of Mormon, such as black people are the product of a curse, native Americans are descendants of Israelite people that sailed to the Americas, and the obvious mistranslations of ancient Egyptian texts. The incredible *lack* of evidence for the stories and claims of the Book of Mormon, such as stories of huge civilizations and battles, deaths in the hundreds of thousands and use of steel weapons. The history of the church, and the history of Joseph Smith as a conman and polygamist who slept with children as young as 14, should be enough to convince any open-minded, critical thinker that the Mormon church is not only false, but demonstrably false, and a fabrication of Joseph Smith.

t3_4zzw07

CMV: I believe Colin Kaepernick is a disgusting human being

Coverage of story: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem Colin has stated that he believes white police officers are murdering black civilians, getting paid leave, and then just getting away with it. If this is what he truly believes, then it's disgusting all he's willing to do is just sit during the Anthem. If I lived in a country that just let cops kill civilians and not even investigate why, I'd leave immediately. Colin could do the same, he has the means to do so. He could be lying too of course, but that would mean that he's using the Anthem and police shootings to get attention. No matter how one looks at it, this player is a disgusting human being. Either he's willing to put in almost no effort to stop or avoid absolutely horrid systematic treatment of civilians by his country, or he's using police shootings as a platform to draw attention to himself. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe Colin Kaepernick is a disgusting human being. Coverage of story: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem Colin has stated that he believes white police officers are murdering black civilians, getting paid leave, and then just getting away with it. If this is what he truly believes, then it's disgusting all he's willing to do is just sit during the Anthem. If I lived in a country that just let cops kill civilians and not even investigate why, I'd leave immediately. Colin could do the same, he has the means to do so. He could be lying too of course, but that would mean that he's using the Anthem and police shootings to get attention. No matter how one looks at it, this player is a disgusting human being. Either he's willing to put in almost no effort to stop or avoid absolutely horrid systematic treatment of civilians by his country, or he's using police shootings as a platform to draw attention to himself.

t3_1tmem5

I believe that third wave feminism ended with the rise of social media's popularity (late 2000s), and that fourth wave feminism has begun. CMV.

I claim to not be for or against feminism, but I do like to study the history of ideologies. I noticed that feminist history seems to divide it into 3 waves. The first wave being mostly about legal issues dating from the 1950s and earlier. The second wave being mostly about sexuality, the social stigmas of women in the workplace from the 60s to the early/mid 80s. The third wave realizing that feminism should encompass more minorities and youth, which most say is from the late 80s to the present. I however, think that encompassing the third wave with what feminism is trying to accomplish in the present is substantially different, and should be documented as so. This current wave of feminism focuses mostly on internet activism, and associating feminism into other modern subcultures. I think a perfect example is how we are seeing many more feminists talk about video gaming and feminism. Atheism is another subculture that has seen a rise in feminism. So in short, I think third wave feminism is over. The internet was a major catalyst in the new wave that has begun, and should be documented as such. CMV.

I believe that third wave feminism ended with the rise of social media's popularity (late 2000s), and that fourth wave feminism has begun. CMV. I claim to not be for or against feminism, but I do like to study the history of ideologies. I noticed that feminist history seems to divide it into 3 waves. The first wave being mostly about legal issues dating from the 1950s and earlier. The second wave being mostly about sexuality, the social stigmas of women in the workplace from the 60s to the early/mid 80s. The third wave realizing that feminism should encompass more minorities and youth, which most say is from the late 80s to the present. I however, think that encompassing the third wave with what feminism is trying to accomplish in the present is substantially different, and should be documented as so. This current wave of feminism focuses mostly on internet activism, and associating feminism into other modern subcultures. I think a perfect example is how we are seeing many more feminists talk about video gaming and feminism. Atheism is another subculture that has seen a rise in feminism. So in short, I think third wave feminism is over. The internet was a major catalyst in the new wave that has begun, and should be documented as such. CMV.

t3_2a5mz6

CMV: Anarcho Capitalism and Libertarianism don't have a solution to complex pollution problems.

There are many problems with pollution but I just want to concentrate on one particular aspect of it namely pollution from several actors were the amount each actors releases is not harmful but the accumulated amount is. Global warming would be the most prominent form of pollution but I want to concentrate on it on a much smaller level because I think the scope is easier to discuss. My parents live in a small rural area in Germany with a lot of farming and herding going on. Lately there has been somewhat a boom of biogas plant among the farmes leading to a increased production of rape (the plant). In addition to that there were several new "farming factories" created were tens of thousand of pigs and chicken are raised and slaughtered. All of that has lead to a problem for the region: the nitrate levels in the groundwater are slowly rising to dangerous levels. This is caused by the dung and fertilizer the farmers use and the waste of the factory farms. If you look at each single farm the amount of nitrat released by them is in no way harmful and the oldest farmers in region have been doing so for decades now without causing any quantifiable harm but with the current boom and expension and the omission of a lot of small farms in favour of a few big one has caused the accumulated amount of nitrat in the ground water to rise above the limit values. In Statistan the responsible authorities namely the local department of agriculture and the local department enviromental protection agency are developing new guidlines for the use as dung of fertilizer and new requirements for factory farms to dispose of their waste. They are working slow (as always) but there has already been some success in neighbouring counties. Now what would be the solution in Ancapistan were no regulation exist and pollution is mostly dealt with via property rights and damage suits. The invidiual amount and thus harm caused by each actor is zero or close to zero so there is no party you can sue for damages. So what now? The only answer I've gotten so far is the appeal that they would voluntary change in order protect their property. But the big factory farmers don't give shit because they will already leave scorched earth after they moved because they ground will be polluted with all kinds of nasty stuff and the farmers are in fierce competition with each other were they can't afford to change to a more expensive method of fertilizing their fields while their neighbours possible stick with the old and cheaper ones. The local customer who are affected by the pollution can't influence them by "voting with their wallet" either because most of the products are sold to large market chains and distributed all over the world. I don't see how anarcho capitalism and libertarianism who doesn't accept enviromental regulation have any solution for this problem. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Anarcho Capitalism and Libertarianism don't have a solution to complex pollution problems. There are many problems with pollution but I just want to concentrate on one particular aspect of it namely pollution from several actors were the amount each actors releases is not harmful but the accumulated amount is. Global warming would be the most prominent form of pollution but I want to concentrate on it on a much smaller level because I think the scope is easier to discuss. My parents live in a small rural area in Germany with a lot of farming and herding going on. Lately there has been somewhat a boom of biogas plant among the farmes leading to a increased production of rape (the plant). In addition to that there were several new "farming factories" created were tens of thousand of pigs and chicken are raised and slaughtered. All of that has lead to a problem for the region: the nitrate levels in the groundwater are slowly rising to dangerous levels. This is caused by the dung and fertilizer the farmers use and the waste of the factory farms. If you look at each single farm the amount of nitrat released by them is in no way harmful and the oldest farmers in region have been doing so for decades now without causing any quantifiable harm but with the current boom and expension and the omission of a lot of small farms in favour of a few big one has caused the accumulated amount of nitrat in the ground water to rise above the limit values. In Statistan the responsible authorities namely the local department of agriculture and the local department enviromental protection agency are developing new guidlines for the use as dung of fertilizer and new requirements for factory farms to dispose of their waste. They are working slow (as always) but there has already been some success in neighbouring counties. Now what would be the solution in Ancapistan were no regulation exist and pollution is mostly dealt with via property rights and damage suits. The invidiual amount and thus harm caused by each actor is zero or close to zero so there is no party you can sue for damages. So what now? The only answer I've gotten so far is the appeal that they would voluntary change in order protect their property. But the big factory farmers don't give shit because they will already leave scorched earth after they moved because they ground will be polluted with all kinds of nasty stuff and the farmers are in fierce competition with each other were they can't afford to change to a more expensive method of fertilizing their fields while their neighbours possible stick with the old and cheaper ones. The local customer who are affected by the pollution can't influence them by "voting with their wallet" either because most of the products are sold to large market chains and distributed all over the world. I don't see how anarcho capitalism and libertarianism who doesn't accept enviromental regulation have any solution for this problem.

t3_6pob8c

CMV: Love is a drug like any other, and I should try my best to not to fall into it.

Love effects our brain similarly to many drugs, including its negative effects both during and in falling out. Doing things that I once found fun no longer compare. I sleep less. I am less concentrated throughout the day. My social life falls out of priority. I may do things I will regret for my loved one, or put my self in danger. And so on. All this becomes even worse after a hard break up or loss. In the end, I think love should be held out on at the very least until I find someone I feel confident that I will spend the rest of my life with, in order to minimize the extreme effects of a break up. Even then, love might not be worth its drug-like effects during a healthy relationship. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Love is a drug like any other, and I should try my best to not to fall into it. Love effects our brain similarly to many drugs, including its negative effects both during and in falling out. Doing things that I once found fun no longer compare. I sleep less. I am less concentrated throughout the day. My social life falls out of priority. I may do things I will regret for my loved one, or put my self in danger. And so on. All this becomes even worse after a hard break up or loss. In the end, I think love should be held out on at the very least until I find someone I feel confident that I will spend the rest of my life with, in order to minimize the extreme effects of a break up. Even then, love might not be worth its drug-like effects during a healthy relationship.

t3_1ioyfw

I believe that the use of the word "they" to refer to a singular, gender-neutral person is awkward, uncommon, and improper grammar, regardless of the dictates of the LGBT movement. CMV.

I feel that: * The use of the singular "they" is not appropriate for the English language * The use of the word "it" is far more common and far more appropriate than the use of the word "they" for referring to people with indeterminant gender * A playwright's use of the singular "they" is not a good gauge of the appropriateness of its use in proper English. --- I think **it is absolutely bizarre to utter the sentence "They went to the store" when you're only talking about a single person going to the store**. Why not just say "He or she went to the store" or "That person went to the store"? A little backstory: over in /r/SRSsucks, there was some drama over the gender of someone who recently deleted her account. We now know that it was a "her", but a lot of people, myself included, [thought that it was a "him" for the longest time](http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/1immvk/srser_ull_cult_j_deletes_her_account/cb5ysxj). This caused a lot of drama, and a large branch of that drama involved [the use of the word "they" in a singular context"](http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/1ino21/if_you_know_an_srsers_preferred_gender/cb68hwb?context=2). Anyways, **when a baby is born, we say that "It's a boy" or "It's a girl", not "They're a boy" or "They're a girl"**. When gender is indeterminant, the use of the word "It" is not dehumanizing at all; it is, in fact, far more appropriate than the use of the word "they". I had a discussion in /r/Game0fDolls modmail, and someone pointed out that the use of the singular "they" has been in use since 1594, [according to the wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Summary). The wikipedia page stated that the use of the singular "they" was implemented in: * 1594 by Shakespeare * 1848 by Vanity Fair * 1489 by Caxton * 1595 in Romeo and Juliet * 1884 by Mark Twain * 1901 by George Bernard Shaw * 1904 by Herbert Spencer However, wikipedia didn't give any examples from novelists or non-playwrights, and I don't think that using examples from people who are **bound to follow iambic pentameter** gives a good representation of English language usage (**Shakespeare, for instance, [invented thousands of never-before-used words](http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html)**.) So, in conclusion, I think that this is a drama-laden subject where people are bound to call me a "dehumanizing bastard", but the evidence clearly states that "it" is far more appropriate than "they" when referring to someone of an indeterminant gender. CMV. --- Edit 1: If using "it" would be considered rude in the context, I would use "he/she". I would actually prefer "he/she" or "that person" over "it". But in sentences where the gender of the subject of the sentence is revealed in the predicate at the end of the sentence ("The person is about to reveal himself... It's a man!!!"), using "it" is not rude at all, and it actually sounds more proper than "they".

I believe that the use of the word "they" to refer to a singular, gender-neutral person is awkward, uncommon, and improper grammar, regardless of the dictates of the LGBT movement. CMV. I feel that: * The use of the singular "they" is not appropriate for the English language * The use of the word "it" is far more common and far more appropriate than the use of the word "they" for referring to people with indeterminant gender * A playwright's use of the singular "they" is not a good gauge of the appropriateness of its use in proper English. --- I think **it is absolutely bizarre to utter the sentence "They went to the store" when you're only talking about a single person going to the store**. Why not just say "He or she went to the store" or "That person went to the store"? A little backstory: over in /r/SRSsucks, there was some drama over the gender of someone who recently deleted her account. We now know that it was a "her", but a lot of people, myself included, [thought that it was a "him" for the longest time](http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/1immvk/srser_ull_cult_j_deletes_her_account/cb5ysxj). This caused a lot of drama, and a large branch of that drama involved [the use of the word "they" in a singular context"](http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/1ino21/if_you_know_an_srsers_preferred_gender/cb68hwb?context=2). Anyways, **when a baby is born, we say that "It's a boy" or "It's a girl", not "They're a boy" or "They're a girl"**. When gender is indeterminant, the use of the word "It" is not dehumanizing at all; it is, in fact, far more appropriate than the use of the word "they". I had a discussion in /r/Game0fDolls modmail, and someone pointed out that the use of the singular "they" has been in use since 1594, [according to the wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Summary). The wikipedia page stated that the use of the singular "they" was implemented in: * 1594 by Shakespeare * 1848 by Vanity Fair * 1489 by Caxton * 1595 in Romeo and Juliet * 1884 by Mark Twain * 1901 by George Bernard Shaw * 1904 by Herbert Spencer However, wikipedia didn't give any examples from novelists or non-playwrights, and I don't think that using examples from people who are **bound to follow iambic pentameter** gives a good representation of English language usage (**Shakespeare, for instance, [invented thousands of never-before-used words](http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html)**.) So, in conclusion, I think that this is a drama-laden subject where people are bound to call me a "dehumanizing bastard", but the evidence clearly states that "it" is far more appropriate than "they" when referring to someone of an indeterminant gender. CMV. --- Edit 1: If using "it" would be considered rude in the context, I would use "he/she". I would actually prefer "he/she" or "that person" over "it". But in sentences where the gender of the subject of the sentence is revealed in the predicate at the end of the sentence ("The person is about to reveal himself... It's a man!!!"), using "it" is not rude at all, and it actually sounds more proper than "they".

t3_1z3l4r

I don't believe any animals should be kept in captivity CMV

I understand the practical implications. I suppose I would support some sort of phasing out, starting with the most obvious crimes against nature, like SeaWorld, zoos, petting zoos, exotic pets. There's this truck stop about 20 minutes from where I live that keeps a live tiger in a concrete cell. About the size of a bedroom, with a hose to cool off. Day in and day out he paces up and down, listening to the sounds of the cars on the interstate and children who are brought to gawk before they go in to piss and buy an icee. I oppose any sort of animal ownership. I don't oppose sightseeing tours, like safaris and nature trails and the like, but I think that one day the ownership and use of animals will seem as barbaric as owning a human. This means using animals as house pets, for labor (as in llamas, camels, horses, dog sleds), for consumption (we could, in a generation or two, feed the world on a vegetarian diet much more efficiently than a meat-centered one) and yeah any time an animal is kept for show, whether it is pageantry like a circus or just naturalistic like a zoo. As far as animals that do actual work, like k-9 units and service dogs etc, humanity would just have to transition to using people for those skills. Sure, we can't sniff out cocaine, but I think if we put our heads together we could find an alternative. Finally, the real focus here is captivity. An animal should not be kept against their will, whether by conditioning or a real barrier of some sort. For the record, I own a cat. He is very old and I am pretty sure that after he dies I will not get another. At the very least I would never get anything other than a rescue.

I don't believe any animals should be kept in captivity CMV. I understand the practical implications. I suppose I would support some sort of phasing out, starting with the most obvious crimes against nature, like SeaWorld, zoos, petting zoos, exotic pets. There's this truck stop about 20 minutes from where I live that keeps a live tiger in a concrete cell. About the size of a bedroom, with a hose to cool off. Day in and day out he paces up and down, listening to the sounds of the cars on the interstate and children who are brought to gawk before they go in to piss and buy an icee. I oppose any sort of animal ownership. I don't oppose sightseeing tours, like safaris and nature trails and the like, but I think that one day the ownership and use of animals will seem as barbaric as owning a human. This means using animals as house pets, for labor (as in llamas, camels, horses, dog sleds), for consumption (we could, in a generation or two, feed the world on a vegetarian diet much more efficiently than a meat-centered one) and yeah any time an animal is kept for show, whether it is pageantry like a circus or just naturalistic like a zoo. As far as animals that do actual work, like k-9 units and service dogs etc, humanity would just have to transition to using people for those skills. Sure, we can't sniff out cocaine, but I think if we put our heads together we could find an alternative. Finally, the real focus here is captivity. An animal should not be kept against their will, whether by conditioning or a real barrier of some sort. For the record, I own a cat. He is very old and I am pretty sure that after he dies I will not get another. At the very least I would never get anything other than a rescue.

t3_4key6v

CMV:Israel has no right to exist.

It appears to me that the sole reason Israel was created (and has apparently gotten a *carte blanche* in terms of what it can do in Palestine) was as a result of the guilt and sheer horror felt by the international community after the holocaust. My view is also that Israel would not have lasted a day were it not for the (still present) absurd amount of international aid, which it receives solely because it is a useful ally to the US, to the extent that they have overlooked an israeli attack on a US ship (wrote it down to "friendly fire") to ensure good relations. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Israel has no right to exist. It appears to me that the sole reason Israel was created (and has apparently gotten a *carte blanche* in terms of what it can do in Palestine) was as a result of the guilt and sheer horror felt by the international community after the holocaust. My view is also that Israel would not have lasted a day were it not for the (still present) absurd amount of international aid, which it receives solely because it is a useful ally to the US, to the extent that they have overlooked an israeli attack on a US ship (wrote it down to "friendly fire") to ensure good relations.

t3_1sezk2

Capitalism is a failing economic system in America. CMV

This is why I hold my view: GDP per capita today in the US is at an all-time high. But all of that wealth is concentrated within a small group of people, like an oligarchy. Here's a quote from Senator Bernie Sanders (D)-Vt: *"Today the Walton Family Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40% of America."* July 22nd, 2012-Twitter Look at that statistic, and tell me that it's not unfair. Trickle-down/supply-side economics (the way I see it) has grossly failed each time that it has been implemented. I perceive that under this current administration President Obama more or less has carried on these policies, at the expense of everyone else. The gap between the rich and poor is the greatest it's ever been. As Warren Buffet said: "There is a class war being waged, and we're winning." Wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone if we moved towards a more egalitarian society?

Capitalism is a failing economic system in America. CMV. This is why I hold my view: GDP per capita today in the US is at an all-time high. But all of that wealth is concentrated within a small group of people, like an oligarchy. Here's a quote from Senator Bernie Sanders (D)-Vt: *"Today the Walton Family Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40% of America."* July 22nd, 2012-Twitter Look at that statistic, and tell me that it's not unfair. Trickle-down/supply-side economics (the way I see it) has grossly failed each time that it has been implemented. I perceive that under this current administration President Obama more or less has carried on these policies, at the expense of everyone else. The gap between the rich and poor is the greatest it's ever been. As Warren Buffet said: "There is a class war being waged, and we're winning." Wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone if we moved towards a more egalitarian society?

t3_2ytcka

CMV: I think teachers should not have a child during the school year.

I saw [this post](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2ys6nw/what_is_the_most_inappropriate_question_youve/cpchys6) and I while I think there was a degree of /r/thatHappened to it, I disagree with what seems to be the general sentiment. When a teacher - male or female - starts a school year, I think that they have a certain moral obligation to complete the year. This teacher will leave to have the child about 3 months into the year, and at that point the children will have to get a new teacher. The confusion and inevitable chaos will impact the children work and probably have knock on effects that might last a long time. Given that state schools often struggle with staffing anyway, a series of substitutes and inconsistent teaching is likely. I don't think that teachers should not be allowed to have kids, but if they do they should either plan it so that they can finish the school year, or take lighter duties (acting as a sub until its time to have the child for example). I guess this can extent to pregnancy and other jobs, but I feel most strongly about teachers because it has such a detrimental effect on others. Edit: downvotes. fabulous arguments right there. Also clarifying because some people seem to think I'm saying teachers should not have kids or be fired for it. They should, and should not respectively. What I am saying is that **starting a school year** with a teacher who is already pregnant basically means that the class is guaranteed to face disruption. Now some years and with younger kids it might not matter, though I did post some research papers in the comments about the effects on learning writing and maths. But in a critical exam year, when the students are facing the most important work of their lives thus far, I think its unfair on those students to give them a teacher who they know won't be with them more than a few months. Seen some great arguments on why teachers can have babies, but I already know that.

CMV: I think teachers should not have a child during the school year. I saw [this post](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2ys6nw/what_is_the_most_inappropriate_question_youve/cpchys6) and I while I think there was a degree of /r/thatHappened to it, I disagree with what seems to be the general sentiment. When a teacher - male or female - starts a school year, I think that they have a certain moral obligation to complete the year. This teacher will leave to have the child about 3 months into the year, and at that point the children will have to get a new teacher. The confusion and inevitable chaos will impact the children work and probably have knock on effects that might last a long time. Given that state schools often struggle with staffing anyway, a series of substitutes and inconsistent teaching is likely. I don't think that teachers should not be allowed to have kids, but if they do they should either plan it so that they can finish the school year, or take lighter duties (acting as a sub until its time to have the child for example). I guess this can extent to pregnancy and other jobs, but I feel most strongly about teachers because it has such a detrimental effect on others. Edit: downvotes. fabulous arguments right there. Also clarifying because some people seem to think I'm saying teachers should not have kids or be fired for it. They should, and should not respectively. What I am saying is that **starting a school year** with a teacher who is already pregnant basically means that the class is guaranteed to face disruption. Now some years and with younger kids it might not matter, though I did post some research papers in the comments about the effects on learning writing and maths. But in a critical exam year, when the students are facing the most important work of their lives thus far, I think its unfair on those students to give them a teacher who they know won't be with them more than a few months. Seen some great arguments on why teachers can have babies, but I already know that.

t3_2sk852

CMV: There's no wrong way to eat a Reece's

I was eating a Reece's the other day and my wife accused me of eating it too fast. I was eating too big of bites. She said I needed to savor it. There are apparently a large number of ways you could do this. Almost all of these involve eating slow so lets get that out of the way. The standard way would be to just bite straight in and have a nice amount of the chocolate enriched outer segment and the peanut butter segment. Nice and balanced. And alternative way to eat a Reece's would be to eat around the edge and to then eat the center as a finale. I could see this working for peanut butter lovers or chocolate lovers equally well it would just depend on whether you want to have your favorite portion at the end. Alternatively you can pop the center out, eat it, and then eat the rim. You could split the reece's in half, eat the center part of one half, the rim of that half and then repeat for the other half. These all have their pros and cons but the one thing they have in common is that allow you to fine tune your eating experience to match your preferences. So for every way of eating a reece's theres a personality type that is well suited to that method. Since there is a bunch of different personality types, there are a bunch of right ways to eat a reece's and arguably no wrong way to eat one. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's no wrong way to eat a Reece's. I was eating a Reece's the other day and my wife accused me of eating it too fast. I was eating too big of bites. She said I needed to savor it. There are apparently a large number of ways you could do this. Almost all of these involve eating slow so lets get that out of the way. The standard way would be to just bite straight in and have a nice amount of the chocolate enriched outer segment and the peanut butter segment. Nice and balanced. And alternative way to eat a Reece's would be to eat around the edge and to then eat the center as a finale. I could see this working for peanut butter lovers or chocolate lovers equally well it would just depend on whether you want to have your favorite portion at the end. Alternatively you can pop the center out, eat it, and then eat the rim. You could split the reece's in half, eat the center part of one half, the rim of that half and then repeat for the other half. These all have their pros and cons but the one thing they have in common is that allow you to fine tune your eating experience to match your preferences. So for every way of eating a reece's theres a personality type that is well suited to that method. Since there is a bunch of different personality types, there are a bunch of right ways to eat a reece's and arguably no wrong way to eat one.

t3_1nmq89

I believe there are too many Pokémon. CMV.

As of *Black and White 2*, there are 649 Pokémon and this number will further expand in a couple of weeks once *X and Y* is released. Because of this, there's too much stress on the designers to keep coming up with new original Pokémon concepts, and I don't think this is sustainable at this rate. This wouldn't be a problem if it were a game series that's supposed to end at some point, but this being one of Nintendo's flagship series, the idea is to continue with new *Pokémon* games for as long as possible. I don't believe they *have* to make that many new Pokémon every new generation, though. There are so many Pokémon now that simply cycling through the older ones will already be fairly exciting for newer players and nostalgic for older ones. I'm not saying they have to stop making new Pokémon altogether, only that they can afford to make a lot less of them.

I believe there are too many Pokémon. CMV. As of *Black and White 2*, there are 649 Pokémon and this number will further expand in a couple of weeks once *X and Y* is released. Because of this, there's too much stress on the designers to keep coming up with new original Pokémon concepts, and I don't think this is sustainable at this rate. This wouldn't be a problem if it were a game series that's supposed to end at some point, but this being one of Nintendo's flagship series, the idea is to continue with new *Pokémon* games for as long as possible. I don't believe they *have* to make that many new Pokémon every new generation, though. There are so many Pokémon now that simply cycling through the older ones will already be fairly exciting for newer players and nostalgic for older ones. I'm not saying they have to stop making new Pokémon altogether, only that they can afford to make a lot less of them.

t3_1dpv3j

I think homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. CMV. I know it's a horrible view.

When I first heard from someone that pedophilia is a psychological problem, I related it to my understanding of homosexuality. I immediately thought that both were simply sexual preferences (or orientation). The only difference I placed between the two is that pedophiles are destructive in that an adult can take advantage of a child whereas practicing homosexuality is typically between two consenting adults.

I think homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. CMV. I know it's a horrible view. When I first heard from someone that pedophilia is a psychological problem, I related it to my understanding of homosexuality. I immediately thought that both were simply sexual preferences (or orientation). The only difference I placed between the two is that pedophiles are destructive in that an adult can take advantage of a child whereas practicing homosexuality is typically between two consenting adults.

t3_3vyxc8

CMV: I am not smart enough to vote for a proper presidential candidate, therefore I will vote for whoever I deem has the best personality.

This is not a case of "I only have 1 vote so it doesn't have an effect." I was thinking the other day about how some of my uninformed and uninterested friends can have a favorite presidential candidate and support them. After all, they don't know the first thing about economics, foreign happenings, or anything of that nature. And yet, they can still vehemently support a particular candidate because like like their personality or something like that. I recently thought about how I would run the country if I were given the chance. Now, as is implied above, I consider myself to be more informed and educated about political matters than those people I mentioned. However, I realized I know nothing about politics, economics, or how to run foreign relations. I wouldn't know what to do or where to begin. Given that, how can I decide which candidates are worthy of my vote based on their policies? If I can't decide what policies I would use, surely there is no way I can judge the policies of the candidates. Obviously there are some people that have ideas that **sound** good and **look** good on paper, but how can I really know if the outcome of those ideas will be good given my lack of economic (for example) expertise and understanding? Thus, it seems that I am not in a position to properly judge any candidate due to my lack of knowledge. The only thing I can do is assume that all the candidates have a much better understanding of things than I do and are supporting the policies that would work best. Therefore, I will vote for the person who I think has the best... not sure what word I want to use here... personality? I essence, I will be voting exactly the way the "uninformed and uninterested" people are (this makes me question my existence). Hope that makes sense.

CMV: I am not smart enough to vote for a proper presidential candidate, therefore I will vote for whoever I deem has the best personality. This is not a case of "I only have 1 vote so it doesn't have an effect." I was thinking the other day about how some of my uninformed and uninterested friends can have a favorite presidential candidate and support them. After all, they don't know the first thing about economics, foreign happenings, or anything of that nature. And yet, they can still vehemently support a particular candidate because like like their personality or something like that. I recently thought about how I would run the country if I were given the chance. Now, as is implied above, I consider myself to be more informed and educated about political matters than those people I mentioned. However, I realized I know nothing about politics, economics, or how to run foreign relations. I wouldn't know what to do or where to begin. Given that, how can I decide which candidates are worthy of my vote based on their policies? If I can't decide what policies I would use, surely there is no way I can judge the policies of the candidates. Obviously there are some people that have ideas that **sound** good and **look** good on paper, but how can I really know if the outcome of those ideas will be good given my lack of economic (for example) expertise and understanding? Thus, it seems that I am not in a position to properly judge any candidate due to my lack of knowledge. The only thing I can do is assume that all the candidates have a much better understanding of things than I do and are supporting the policies that would work best. Therefore, I will vote for the person who I think has the best... not sure what word I want to use here... personality? I essence, I will be voting exactly the way the "uninformed and uninterested" people are (this makes me question my existence). Hope that makes sense.

t3_1wlo4l

CMV - A bit of a lighter topic than what's usually posted here, but I do not believe Batman is a super hero.

We can all agree that other characters like Spiderman, Superman, The Flash and so forth are all heroes. Why? They have powers related to their own body. They do not need some special kind of equipment to be able to use their powers, they're always there. Batman on the other hand, is just a rich guy with a bunch of toys and hand-to-hand combat training. How can he be a "super hero" if he doesn't have any powers? And yes, that makes Iron Man a part of this category as well. I'm just unsure how a man without any special abilities can be considered "super". I'm not doubting he's a hero in and of itself - that much is certain. But "super"? I doubt it. So, Reddit. CMV.

CMV - A bit of a lighter topic than what's usually posted here, but I do not believe Batman is a super hero. We can all agree that other characters like Spiderman, Superman, The Flash and so forth are all heroes. Why? They have powers related to their own body. They do not need some special kind of equipment to be able to use their powers, they're always there. Batman on the other hand, is just a rich guy with a bunch of toys and hand-to-hand combat training. How can he be a "super hero" if he doesn't have any powers? And yes, that makes Iron Man a part of this category as well. I'm just unsure how a man without any special abilities can be considered "super". I'm not doubting he's a hero in and of itself - that much is certain. But "super"? I doubt it. So, Reddit. CMV.

t3_6nlile

CMV: The Internet Leads to More Inequality of Knowledge than Less

I will start this post with a personal anecdote and then go more into detail about my objective view on this topic. Currently, I search interesting websites on the internet, which expand my knowledge. Among the websites, I've found are [bostonreview.net](http://bostonreview.net/), [stackexchange](https://stackexchange.com/) or [some good speeches organised by Stanford University](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gsb-experience/academic/guest-speakers/view-top). This is only a small sample of my aggregate of high quality content with low exposure. I'm bothered by the fact, that it is so difficult to find high quality content with low exposure, because they can't easily be found through search engines. This personal story is the motivation for my post. In theory, the internet should be a network giving everyone access to the knowledge in human society, while in reality it embraces a huge emphasis on popularity. Websites with a lot of clicks and advertisement are easily found. You will find the NYTimes more easily than bostonreview.net, although bostonreview has a lot more articles, percentage wise!, from influential people in politics, economics, science or philosophy. The majority of people are stuck in the loop of popular topics, instead of reading articles, that actually expand their view on the world. They read about Erdogan making Turkey crumble 10.000 times, while not recognizing the huge progress South East Asia makes. There are probably groups out there doing a similar things than I do. They create an aggregate of influential articles or influential forums and expand their worldview and knowledge through a good aggregate. What I currently do is just excess work others have already done. Such a group is one step ahead of me in their knowledge progress and always will be a step ahead of me through their collective work. Another example is reddit. There are a lot of good communities out there, but I can't seem to find them, because I don't know what to search for. Some of the best PodCasts or Blogs out there sit below 50.000 views/clicks. They have good content, but are not commercially oriented. Thus making them difficult to find. People knowing about those "hidden" knowledge-expanding channels or communities are improving their personal development much faster than I do. While the majority of people read what is popular, some read what is influential. The latter have a community or network behind them, which helps them to expand their knowledge faster than the general population. This leads to an ever increasing inequality of knowledge.

CMV: The Internet Leads to More Inequality of Knowledge than Less. I will start this post with a personal anecdote and then go more into detail about my objective view on this topic. Currently, I search interesting websites on the internet, which expand my knowledge. Among the websites, I've found are [bostonreview.net](http://bostonreview.net/), [stackexchange](https://stackexchange.com/) or [some good speeches organised by Stanford University](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gsb-experience/academic/guest-speakers/view-top). This is only a small sample of my aggregate of high quality content with low exposure. I'm bothered by the fact, that it is so difficult to find high quality content with low exposure, because they can't easily be found through search engines. This personal story is the motivation for my post. In theory, the internet should be a network giving everyone access to the knowledge in human society, while in reality it embraces a huge emphasis on popularity. Websites with a lot of clicks and advertisement are easily found. You will find the NYTimes more easily than bostonreview.net, although bostonreview has a lot more articles, percentage wise!, from influential people in politics, economics, science or philosophy. The majority of people are stuck in the loop of popular topics, instead of reading articles, that actually expand their view on the world. They read about Erdogan making Turkey crumble 10.000 times, while not recognizing the huge progress South East Asia makes. There are probably groups out there doing a similar things than I do. They create an aggregate of influential articles or influential forums and expand their worldview and knowledge through a good aggregate. What I currently do is just excess work others have already done. Such a group is one step ahead of me in their knowledge progress and always will be a step ahead of me through their collective work. Another example is reddit. There are a lot of good communities out there, but I can't seem to find them, because I don't know what to search for. Some of the best PodCasts or Blogs out there sit below 50.000 views/clicks. They have good content, but are not commercially oriented. Thus making them difficult to find. People knowing about those "hidden" knowledge-expanding channels or communities are improving their personal development much faster than I do. While the majority of people read what is popular, some read what is influential. The latter have a community or network behind them, which helps them to expand their knowledge faster than the general population. This leads to an ever increasing inequality of knowledge.

t3_6v2stu

CMV:Ethnic homogeneity = peace

I’m a pretty center-left guy from California, and have plenty of ethnic friends, or whatever you want to call it. But looking out over the world’s conflicts, I can’t help but reach a conclusion I do not want to believe: that diversity begets conflict. The most peaceful places on Earth (Scandinavia, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria etc) seem to share a huge degree of ethnic homogeneity. Meanwhile, most conflict regions (Middle East, Central Africa, Indonesia/SE Asia, South Africa, and various European and American cities) are the most diverse areas. Even if you want to control for colonial past, you could look at Latin America, where Costa Rica and Chile are the most ethnically homogenous and (arguably) the most successful/peaceful, or Morocco and Botswana, two of the most homogenous countries in Africa, and also two of the most stable. Kurdistan is a center of peace in Iraq arguably because of the high level of trust and cooperation between Kurds. Here’s a [map](https://i.redd.it/o1kts21y48zx.jpg) for reference. I know the map has some problems, but nevertheless, in general this is not necessarily an unpopular opinion, especially in today’s racially charged domestic environment. Can anybody tell me why the homogeneity/peace relationship is a spurious correlation? ********************************************* EDIT: This has been a great talk. I think that (to me, at least), the two strongest arguments, made by multiple people, have been that: 1) "Diversity" is a super broad term, that can be broken up into race, religion, ethnicity, and more (and yes I did conflate those somewhat in my original post), along arbitrary lines, and these differences are ultimately social constructs. 2) People will always find ways to exclude other groups/mobilize groups against each other, taking advantage of the human us-vs-them instinct, and thus it is not so much ethnic diversity that causes conflict, but lack of institutions which prevent strong "identity" divides from becoming poignant in the first place, whether it be along the lines of ethnic group, political identity, class membership, whatever. Consider my view changed! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Ethnic homogeneity = peace. I’m a pretty center-left guy from California, and have plenty of ethnic friends, or whatever you want to call it. But looking out over the world’s conflicts, I can’t help but reach a conclusion I do not want to believe: that diversity begets conflict. The most peaceful places on Earth (Scandinavia, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria etc) seem to share a huge degree of ethnic homogeneity. Meanwhile, most conflict regions (Middle East, Central Africa, Indonesia/SE Asia, South Africa, and various European and American cities) are the most diverse areas. Even if you want to control for colonial past, you could look at Latin America, where Costa Rica and Chile are the most ethnically homogenous and (arguably) the most successful/peaceful, or Morocco and Botswana, two of the most homogenous countries in Africa, and also two of the most stable. Kurdistan is a center of peace in Iraq arguably because of the high level of trust and cooperation between Kurds. Here’s a [map](https://i.redd.it/o1kts21y48zx.jpg) for reference. I know the map has some problems, but nevertheless, in general this is not necessarily an unpopular opinion, especially in today’s racially charged domestic environment. Can anybody tell me why the homogeneity/peace relationship is a spurious correlation? ********************************************* EDIT: This has been a great talk. I think that (to me, at least), the two strongest arguments, made by multiple people, have been that: 1) "Diversity" is a super broad term, that can be broken up into race, religion, ethnicity, and more (and yes I did conflate those somewhat in my original post), along arbitrary lines, and these differences are ultimately social constructs. 2) People will always find ways to exclude other groups/mobilize groups against each other, taking advantage of the human us-vs-them instinct, and thus it is not so much ethnic diversity that causes conflict, but lack of institutions which prevent strong "identity" divides from becoming poignant in the first place, whether it be along the lines of ethnic group, political identity, class membership, whatever. Consider my view changed!

t3_1e2qo8

Close to 90% of men have nothing to offer women these days. Change my view.

I want to preface this by saying that **I'm not making a claim about the way things should be; I'm just saying the way they are**. I know that I'm gonna get attacked by feminists who say I want to go back to making women second-class citizens. I'm not saying that. Now, the first thing to understand is that, back in the old days, marriages were forged out of economic necessity for women. If you were a man who made a living in the old days, you wouldn't have any problem finding a woman. Today, women are making a living on their own, so their economic motive is to upgrade their lifestyle by marrying a guy who is making not just a living but a *good* living. I'd peg the number of men who make what is considered a "good living" to be around 10% or less. Is there any hope for the other 90% of men who aren't making a good living? Do women have any reason to want them? Yes, only if these men have some genetic worth, that is, if they're good looking. And women have extremely high standards for what is considered "good looking" for men (They consider over 80% of men to be below average in attractiveness: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/), so I'd say that the percentage of men who can get by in the dating scene by virtue of being tall and handsome is also less than 10%. Why would women settle for anything less? If they want to have kids, which many do want, they can just go to a sperm bank and get Mr. Tall, Dark and Handsome in the event that they can't be knocked up by him the natural way. Bottom line: **If you're not good-looking or rich, you're basically useless to women**. Try online dating if you don't believe me.

Close to 90% of men have nothing to offer women these days. Change my view. I want to preface this by saying that **I'm not making a claim about the way things should be; I'm just saying the way they are**. I know that I'm gonna get attacked by feminists who say I want to go back to making women second-class citizens. I'm not saying that. Now, the first thing to understand is that, back in the old days, marriages were forged out of economic necessity for women. If you were a man who made a living in the old days, you wouldn't have any problem finding a woman. Today, women are making a living on their own, so their economic motive is to upgrade their lifestyle by marrying a guy who is making not just a living but a *good* living. I'd peg the number of men who make what is considered a "good living" to be around 10% or less. Is there any hope for the other 90% of men who aren't making a good living? Do women have any reason to want them? Yes, only if these men have some genetic worth, that is, if they're good looking. And women have extremely high standards for what is considered "good looking" for men (They consider over 80% of men to be below average in attractiveness: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/), so I'd say that the percentage of men who can get by in the dating scene by virtue of being tall and handsome is also less than 10%. Why would women settle for anything less? If they want to have kids, which many do want, they can just go to a sperm bank and get Mr. Tall, Dark and Handsome in the event that they can't be knocked up by him the natural way. Bottom line: **If you're not good-looking or rich, you're basically useless to women**. Try online dating if you don't believe me.

t3_1rbzsk

I don't think forced curves are an effective grading style. CMV

I'm mainly talking about grade curves for college classes where only a certain number of letter grades are given i.e. only x% of students can get an A and z% must get below a C. Here is an example to illustrate why I don't think it's a good grading style. Say you have 2 classes taught by the same professor but different sections and curves. Let's say Law 101-01 is filled with law professors, judges, lawyers, etc. And Law 101-02 is filled with kindergarteners. Now no matter what, some law expert is going to fail an introductory course. And on the flipside, some kindergartener who knows nothing will get an A just because he guessed better on the multiple choice. Essentially, I don't think a forced curve really represents how knowledgeable one is, just how much better one is than the rest of their class. And isn't education about attaining knowledge?

I don't think forced curves are an effective grading style. CMV. I'm mainly talking about grade curves for college classes where only a certain number of letter grades are given i.e. only x% of students can get an A and z% must get below a C. Here is an example to illustrate why I don't think it's a good grading style. Say you have 2 classes taught by the same professor but different sections and curves. Let's say Law 101-01 is filled with law professors, judges, lawyers, etc. And Law 101-02 is filled with kindergarteners. Now no matter what, some law expert is going to fail an introductory course. And on the flipside, some kindergartener who knows nothing will get an A just because he guessed better on the multiple choice. Essentially, I don't think a forced curve really represents how knowledgeable one is, just how much better one is than the rest of their class. And isn't education about attaining knowledge?

t3_5nxgxx

CMV: The original Jean Grey in Marvel's X-Men comics will most likely not be coming back for a very, very long time if ever.

I know that a younger version of Jean along with the other four founding X-Men were brought back in All New X-Men Vol. 1 (2012) but considering the differences between the time displaced characters and their full grown counterparts, they seem to be treated as entirely different characters. The emphasis on the teenaged version of Jean also looks to be a significant reason why Marvel has seemingly not shown interest in using a more classic incarnation of Jean in the main canon in recent years. The original version of Jean Grey was killed off in New X-Men 150 back in 2003. A subsequent miniseries released little over a year later dealt with Jean's connection with the Phoenix but the old Jean Grey has mostly not been addressed since. I know death in comics is not a permanent thing but there some instances where characters actually do stay dead a long time such as Kraven the Hunter, Jason Todd, and Thunderbird. I've noticed several sentiments about the character that may hamper her chances of returning. There's quite a few people out there both in the comics industry and fanbase that believe that the end of Jean Grey's story should have been the Dark Phoenix Saga back in 1980. There's also people who believe the only thing compelling about the old Jean was the relationship tensions with Cyclops and Wolverine. There's also others out there who have considered her previous instances of death and rebirth a worn out concept although she hasn't shown up in a decade. While Jean Grey still has some fans, over the years I've gotten the impression that she has been a polarizing character. I personally like the character myself and would like to see if there's a chance that Marvel would ever revitalize the original Jean Grey and utilize her in a fresh new direction distinct from the old stories that some are still sick of. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The original Jean Grey in Marvel's X-Men comics will most likely not be coming back for a very, very long time if ever. I know that a younger version of Jean along with the other four founding X-Men were brought back in All New X-Men Vol. 1 (2012) but considering the differences between the time displaced characters and their full grown counterparts, they seem to be treated as entirely different characters. The emphasis on the teenaged version of Jean also looks to be a significant reason why Marvel has seemingly not shown interest in using a more classic incarnation of Jean in the main canon in recent years. The original version of Jean Grey was killed off in New X-Men 150 back in 2003. A subsequent miniseries released little over a year later dealt with Jean's connection with the Phoenix but the old Jean Grey has mostly not been addressed since. I know death in comics is not a permanent thing but there some instances where characters actually do stay dead a long time such as Kraven the Hunter, Jason Todd, and Thunderbird. I've noticed several sentiments about the character that may hamper her chances of returning. There's quite a few people out there both in the comics industry and fanbase that believe that the end of Jean Grey's story should have been the Dark Phoenix Saga back in 1980. There's also people who believe the only thing compelling about the old Jean was the relationship tensions with Cyclops and Wolverine. There's also others out there who have considered her previous instances of death and rebirth a worn out concept although she hasn't shown up in a decade. While Jean Grey still has some fans, over the years I've gotten the impression that she has been a polarizing character. I personally like the character myself and would like to see if there's a chance that Marvel would ever revitalize the original Jean Grey and utilize her in a fresh new direction distinct from the old stories that some are still sick of.

t3_3eo2q9

CMV:Women receive lighter criminal sentences and are less likely to be put in prison than men for committing comparable crimes;

"After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx This fact does not support the politically correct notion that there is a "war on women" in the USA, or that America is patriarchal and full of "male privilege". To the contrary, it says that women are more likely to be protected by society than men, and are given special "female privileges" which makes their development easier. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Women receive lighter criminal sentences and are less likely to be put in prison than men for committing comparable crimes;. "After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx This fact does not support the politically correct notion that there is a "war on women" in the USA, or that America is patriarchal and full of "male privilege". To the contrary, it says that women are more likely to be protected by society than men, and are given special "female privileges" which makes their development easier.

t3_21podt

CMV: As a guy who has never been in a relationship, my perception of my friends and relationships in tv and film, for example, is that women aren't really that interested in the physical side of things, and men must put a lot of effort into having a successful physical relationship.

From what I've seen, guys seem to have to work a lot harder in relationships than girls. For example more than one of my friends has been refused sex or even kisses by partners on occasions, but wouldn't have done it the other way round. Guys always seem to be the ones 'friendzoned' and not girls, as if girls aren't really that interested in what guys are thinking, and it's always guys struggling for sex whilst the girl isn't interested. I understand relationships are about more than the physical side to it, but as someone who hasn't been in one is it really a case of girls not really being interested and guys always having to fight an uphill battle to actually have fun with their partner? Also I know there are many long term relationships where this isn't the case, but I'm 20 and for people around my age this seems to be what happens. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As a guy who has never been in a relationship, my perception of my friends and relationships in tv and film, for example, is that women aren't really that interested in the physical side of things, and men must put a lot of effort into having a successful physical relationship. From what I've seen, guys seem to have to work a lot harder in relationships than girls. For example more than one of my friends has been refused sex or even kisses by partners on occasions, but wouldn't have done it the other way round. Guys always seem to be the ones 'friendzoned' and not girls, as if girls aren't really that interested in what guys are thinking, and it's always guys struggling for sex whilst the girl isn't interested. I understand relationships are about more than the physical side to it, but as someone who hasn't been in one is it really a case of girls not really being interested and guys always having to fight an uphill battle to actually have fun with their partner? Also I know there are many long term relationships where this isn't the case, but I'm 20 and for people around my age this seems to be what happens.

t3_2k4c09

CMV:The ability to suspend disgust is critical to being a competent moral agent.

First of all, I'm a utilitarian (negative or preference, depending on the day) but most ethical methodologies are similarly affected. I think that the emotion of disgust is one that is intuitively interpreted as morally relevant. This is okay most of the time, except for when it isn't. There are natural acts towards which we feel no disgust, like having children in dire circumstances, or to the killing of animals for meat, whatever. And there are instances where our disgust response may not actually indicate any *real* ethical issue. Consider the former crime of "miscegenation". Few people seriously think there is any real ethical issue with interracial relationships. Yet there is a generation of people for whom the concept is an abhorrence. They have failed to suspend their culturally conditioned disgust response to rationally assess the morality of interracial relationships. This is true of other issues- homosexuality, perhaps most notably. People confuse their gut feelings about the practice with actual reasons for saying that homosexuality is immoral. Ditto for promiscuity. In modern times, the few remaining taboos also are poorly reasoned about due to this disgust response. Examples include cannibalism, consensual post or non-reproductive incest, polyamory, perhaps even infanticide of anencephalic newborns. The disgust you feel at any or all of these acts or practices is not itself a legitimate argument, let alone a reason. It is merely a response. If you assess each act on its potential and actual harms, and you find nothing that condemns these acts, then you ought get over your disgust. It's tiresome to hear people say they "*know*" cannibalism is "just wrong" but only qualifying that with "I can't explain why". If you can't explain why, you are either inarticulate or your emotional responses are out of touch with ethical reason. It ultimately doesn't matter *which* school of ethical reason, because such individuals never bother to conform to the logic of kantian ethics, virtue ethics or utilitarianism. They never bother to frame it as an argument, just a knee-jerk response.

CMV:The ability to suspend disgust is critical to being a competent moral agent. First of all, I'm a utilitarian (negative or preference, depending on the day) but most ethical methodologies are similarly affected. I think that the emotion of disgust is one that is intuitively interpreted as morally relevant. This is okay most of the time, except for when it isn't. There are natural acts towards which we feel no disgust, like having children in dire circumstances, or to the killing of animals for meat, whatever. And there are instances where our disgust response may not actually indicate any *real* ethical issue. Consider the former crime of "miscegenation". Few people seriously think there is any real ethical issue with interracial relationships. Yet there is a generation of people for whom the concept is an abhorrence. They have failed to suspend their culturally conditioned disgust response to rationally assess the morality of interracial relationships. This is true of other issues- homosexuality, perhaps most notably. People confuse their gut feelings about the practice with actual reasons for saying that homosexuality is immoral. Ditto for promiscuity. In modern times, the few remaining taboos also are poorly reasoned about due to this disgust response. Examples include cannibalism, consensual post or non-reproductive incest, polyamory, perhaps even infanticide of anencephalic newborns. The disgust you feel at any or all of these acts or practices is not itself a legitimate argument, let alone a reason. It is merely a response. If you assess each act on its potential and actual harms, and you find nothing that condemns these acts, then you ought get over your disgust. It's tiresome to hear people say they "*know*" cannibalism is "just wrong" but only qualifying that with "I can't explain why". If you can't explain why, you are either inarticulate or your emotional responses are out of touch with ethical reason. It ultimately doesn't matter *which* school of ethical reason, because such individuals never bother to conform to the logic of kantian ethics, virtue ethics or utilitarianism. They never bother to frame it as an argument, just a knee-jerk response.

t3_3jkgk8

CMV: If Bernie Sanders or another presidential candidate make college tuition free, it will continue driving up the cost of education resulting in much higher taxes and rich university owners.

I believe that, in the modern world, education takes importance over any other expenditure that the government could spend tax dollar on. However, it is my understanding that college tuition has risen so astronomically in recent years because of the loans that are readily available for nearly anybody who wants to attend college. Whereas my parents could work a summer job to pay their way through school, I'm looking at ~30 years of debt. So, of course, I'm hoping for a politician to come along, wave his magic wand, and make that go away. However, isn't that unsustainable? If tuition is rising because of readily available loans, won't it go up even more if people don't have to be aware of the cost at all? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If Bernie Sanders or another presidential candidate make college tuition free, it will continue driving up the cost of education resulting in much higher taxes and rich university owners. I believe that, in the modern world, education takes importance over any other expenditure that the government could spend tax dollar on. However, it is my understanding that college tuition has risen so astronomically in recent years because of the loans that are readily available for nearly anybody who wants to attend college. Whereas my parents could work a summer job to pay their way through school, I'm looking at ~30 years of debt. So, of course, I'm hoping for a politician to come along, wave his magic wand, and make that go away. However, isn't that unsustainable? If tuition is rising because of readily available loans, won't it go up even more if people don't have to be aware of the cost at all?

t3_1poae0

I do not have a problem with Voter I.D. Laws and haven't heard any opposition that isn't completely laughable. CMV

Seriously, guys.... what's the big deal with having an I.D. to vote? You are legally allowed to be detained if you cannot sport some form of I.D. I think having one in order to vote should have been mandatory in the first place. I think liberals and Democrats seeing this as a Republican scheme to keep away Democrat voters is a ridiculous claim. You need an ID to get a job, drive a car, sign up for Social Security, and needing one to participate in the democratic process is not at all unreasonable. CMV

I do not have a problem with Voter I.D. Laws and haven't heard any opposition that isn't completely laughable. CMV. Seriously, guys.... what's the big deal with having an I.D. to vote? You are legally allowed to be detained if you cannot sport some form of I.D. I think having one in order to vote should have been mandatory in the first place. I think liberals and Democrats seeing this as a Republican scheme to keep away Democrat voters is a ridiculous claim. You need an ID to get a job, drive a car, sign up for Social Security, and needing one to participate in the democratic process is not at all unreasonable. CMV

t3_1dvx77

I believe that everyone should be required to learn a basic history of philosophy. CMV

I'm talking about American high schools specifically. Our society already has a suite of required courses that all students must take in order to graduate high school. These courses are mandated primarily because they are necessary: everyone needs to know how to construct a grammatical sentence, be familiar with basic math, and know what the Constitution is. Philosophy as a discipline is the basis of all other methods of generating knowledge that we have. Every field of study has a basic philosophy attached to it. The same goes for every industry and policy and political community. Knowing the history of philosophical thought in addition to general world history, science, math, and so on would help the student understand the world. This would benefit every student in their future life. CMV

I believe that everyone should be required to learn a basic history of philosophy. CMV. I'm talking about American high schools specifically. Our society already has a suite of required courses that all students must take in order to graduate high school. These courses are mandated primarily because they are necessary: everyone needs to know how to construct a grammatical sentence, be familiar with basic math, and know what the Constitution is. Philosophy as a discipline is the basis of all other methods of generating knowledge that we have. Every field of study has a basic philosophy attached to it. The same goes for every industry and policy and political community. Knowing the history of philosophical thought in addition to general world history, science, math, and so on would help the student understand the world. This would benefit every student in their future life. CMV

t3_1ga5l3

CMV My boyfriend wants a sphinx cat, but I can't see them being cuddly family members.

In the course of my life, my family has owned 7 felines, 3 of which are currently living. All of them have been rescues, all of them have had fur. While the personality of the cat is what I most enjoy, there is a definite weight to the "cuddly" factor as well. I feel like if I owned a hairless cat, it wouldn't be as cuddly. It would be weird to pet it. They also look kinda creepy. I feel like if I woke up in the middle of the night and saw it staring at me, I would freak out. I would also feel kinda bad about adopting an expensive cat from a breeder when there are so many cats in shelters in need of good homes. I'm that person that would adopt every lost lonely cat if I could, so having one specially "made" feels treasonous. I'm open to any and all arguments on the matter.

CMV My boyfriend wants a sphinx cat, but I can't see them being cuddly family members. In the course of my life, my family has owned 7 felines, 3 of which are currently living. All of them have been rescues, all of them have had fur. While the personality of the cat is what I most enjoy, there is a definite weight to the "cuddly" factor as well. I feel like if I owned a hairless cat, it wouldn't be as cuddly. It would be weird to pet it. They also look kinda creepy. I feel like if I woke up in the middle of the night and saw it staring at me, I would freak out. I would also feel kinda bad about adopting an expensive cat from a breeder when there are so many cats in shelters in need of good homes. I'm that person that would adopt every lost lonely cat if I could, so having one specially "made" feels treasonous. I'm open to any and all arguments on the matter.

t3_1s8qzy

I believe that Pope Francis's focus on love over judgement will significantly decrease the number of practicing Catholics. CMV.

My wife is Catholic, & I attend a Catholic Church with her. Neither of us believe Christian doctrine very strongly, particularly the judgmental parts. We both love what Pope Francis is doing - emphasizing love for humanity and de-emphasizing judgement - and I think he's getting back to the core of Christianity. But from a purely numbers perspective I think this is eventually going to reduce the number of people going to Catholic churches. Look at the more liberal Christian denominations like the ELCA Lutherans: their numbers are plummeting while "evangelicals" in America, who are heavy on judgement and light on love, are holding their ground or gaining. Clearly judgement puts butts in pews. I'm not saying that what Pope Francis is doing is wrong. It's clearly the right thing to do according to his religion. But I am saying that there will be fewer people professing to be Catholic and fewer people attending Catholic Church a decade from now as a result of his emphasis. I'm also not saying this is a bad thing - even if it drives people away, he's doing the right thing. CMV that the Catholic Church's numbers will go down. I can't really speak to the church situation outside of the US, but I assume the pattern will be similar. So if you can demonstrate that I am correct for America and wrong for the rest of the world that's allowed.

I believe that Pope Francis's focus on love over judgement will significantly decrease the number of practicing Catholics. CMV. My wife is Catholic, & I attend a Catholic Church with her. Neither of us believe Christian doctrine very strongly, particularly the judgmental parts. We both love what Pope Francis is doing - emphasizing love for humanity and de-emphasizing judgement - and I think he's getting back to the core of Christianity. But from a purely numbers perspective I think this is eventually going to reduce the number of people going to Catholic churches. Look at the more liberal Christian denominations like the ELCA Lutherans: their numbers are plummeting while "evangelicals" in America, who are heavy on judgement and light on love, are holding their ground or gaining. Clearly judgement puts butts in pews. I'm not saying that what Pope Francis is doing is wrong. It's clearly the right thing to do according to his religion. But I am saying that there will be fewer people professing to be Catholic and fewer people attending Catholic Church a decade from now as a result of his emphasis. I'm also not saying this is a bad thing - even if it drives people away, he's doing the right thing. CMV that the Catholic Church's numbers will go down. I can't really speak to the church situation outside of the US, but I assume the pattern will be similar. So if you can demonstrate that I am correct for America and wrong for the rest of the world that's allowed.

t3_2qzudy

CMV: Physical media such as DVDs, blu-rays, and music CDs are pointless to purchase, because they will be obsolete within 10 years

Although there is something kind of special about owning a physical copy of a favorite movie or album, I no longer see any reason to purchase a piece of physical media in today's world of technology that includes such a vast array of services. There are two main reasons: 1) Streaming and subscription services have exploded at a staggering rate. Look at Spotify and Netflix as the prime examples. For an incredibly cheap price, or sometimes at no price at all, you can listen to almost any song your heart desires, or watch any movie that strikes your interest. Yes, it is true that both of these services do not have literally everything, but as the years go on, these services will only get better, to the point where it is virtually impossible to not have access to a movie or song. 2) Storage devices will only continue to increase in storage capacity. Why own a disc that takes up physical space in your household when you can download all of your TV shows, movies, and music onto your computer? Many people today are creating their own home servers with tons of storage space to hold all their media. Granted, this is a bit difficult for those who are not tech savvy, but a few years from now, I'm positive that obtaining a server for your media and being able to place media on it will become an incredibly simple process. As one final, less important point, physical media is restricted in its quality. What you purchase is what you get. For example, DVDs are not capable of playing movies in full HD. In order to get the best quality, you need to repurchase your DVDs in blu-ray. But even now, blu-rays are being outdone by 4k quality! How long will this continue for? I'd love to hear your opinions, because despite this, I do have an irrational attraction to physical CDs.

CMV: Physical media such as DVDs, blu-rays, and music CDs are pointless to purchase, because they will be obsolete within 10 years. Although there is something kind of special about owning a physical copy of a favorite movie or album, I no longer see any reason to purchase a piece of physical media in today's world of technology that includes such a vast array of services. There are two main reasons: 1) Streaming and subscription services have exploded at a staggering rate. Look at Spotify and Netflix as the prime examples. For an incredibly cheap price, or sometimes at no price at all, you can listen to almost any song your heart desires, or watch any movie that strikes your interest. Yes, it is true that both of these services do not have literally everything, but as the years go on, these services will only get better, to the point where it is virtually impossible to not have access to a movie or song. 2) Storage devices will only continue to increase in storage capacity. Why own a disc that takes up physical space in your household when you can download all of your TV shows, movies, and music onto your computer? Many people today are creating their own home servers with tons of storage space to hold all their media. Granted, this is a bit difficult for those who are not tech savvy, but a few years from now, I'm positive that obtaining a server for your media and being able to place media on it will become an incredibly simple process. As one final, less important point, physical media is restricted in its quality. What you purchase is what you get. For example, DVDs are not capable of playing movies in full HD. In order to get the best quality, you need to repurchase your DVDs in blu-ray. But even now, blu-rays are being outdone by 4k quality! How long will this continue for? I'd love to hear your opinions, because despite this, I do have an irrational attraction to physical CDs.

t3_4db3np

CMV: Anti/Pro feminists are just taking part in a big old oppression olympics.

I just think that gamergate and the whole sjw/anti-sjw shitshow is too damn irritating. Why cant people just get the memo; keep politics out of video games and let people just play their damn games. Im also kind of sick of oppression olympics where both sides are trying to come up with reasons why they are somehow more oppressed and marginalized than the other group when there are other things that are much more important. Im not pro or anti feminism nor am I an sjw/anti sjw, Im just thoroughly sick of how people have decided that somehow it is alright to compete over petty things and discredit the other side when they could instead discuss legitimate issues and have open discussions with each other. Can some people from both sides give me, a neutral bystander, some opinions from both side? Edit: I meant that instead of hurling insults at each side,both sides should take the time to hear each others thoughts and come up with good responses to them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Anti/Pro feminists are just taking part in a big old oppression olympics. I just think that gamergate and the whole sjw/anti-sjw shitshow is too damn irritating. Why cant people just get the memo; keep politics out of video games and let people just play their damn games. Im also kind of sick of oppression olympics where both sides are trying to come up with reasons why they are somehow more oppressed and marginalized than the other group when there are other things that are much more important. Im not pro or anti feminism nor am I an sjw/anti sjw, Im just thoroughly sick of how people have decided that somehow it is alright to compete over petty things and discredit the other side when they could instead discuss legitimate issues and have open discussions with each other. Can some people from both sides give me, a neutral bystander, some opinions from both side? Edit: I meant that instead of hurling insults at each side,both sides should take the time to hear each others thoughts and come up with good responses to them.

t3_1gcbr7

I believe that government surveillance programs like PRISM pose no threat to me whatsoever, and that if someone broadcasts potentially damaging or incriminating information over the internet, it is their own fault if that information is made public. CMV

As a law-abiding citizen I'm just really not worried that such programs are going to affect me in any way. I have no open lines of overseas communication, and even if I did I would never be involved in anything that could come anywhere near raising a red flag for analysts searching for connections to terrorism. And as far as privacy... I guess I just don't understand what people are so afraid of the government getting their hands on. If you're broadcasting potentially legally incriminating information via email or facebook, you deserve to be caught IMO. As long as people use common sense and treat anything they send over the internet as public information, I really don't see what the big deal is. The information you put out there is under constant threat of unwanted access from much more sinister sources than the US government (identity thieves for example). I just don't see how or why the government would ever attempt to use that information against me.

I believe that government surveillance programs like PRISM pose no threat to me whatsoever, and that if someone broadcasts potentially damaging or incriminating information over the internet, it is their own fault if that information is made public. CMV. As a law-abiding citizen I'm just really not worried that such programs are going to affect me in any way. I have no open lines of overseas communication, and even if I did I would never be involved in anything that could come anywhere near raising a red flag for analysts searching for connections to terrorism. And as far as privacy... I guess I just don't understand what people are so afraid of the government getting their hands on. If you're broadcasting potentially legally incriminating information via email or facebook, you deserve to be caught IMO. As long as people use common sense and treat anything they send over the internet as public information, I really don't see what the big deal is. The information you put out there is under constant threat of unwanted access from much more sinister sources than the US government (identity thieves for example). I just don't see how or why the government would ever attempt to use that information against me.

t3_2q4trg

CMV: The "Trans-Panic" defense is a valid defense and should be an acceptable defense California (where it has been barred).

I support transsexual and transgender rights, but I feel like this defense, when used sometimes and under some circumstances does hold water. In short this is the trans panic defense (also used for gays but I think that gay is much different than trans when it comes to this topic and for the sake of this CMV I will not defend the gay panic defense) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense I think that it can be a valid response to rape by deception, this was the case in Scottland. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/man-%E2%80%98guilty%E2%80%99-fraud-not-telling-girlfriend-he-was-trans070313 The rape by deception rule has been used in the US. Just not on trans people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception Here is a more organized point of view: If a trans person commits fraud rape, and the person snaps in a heat of passion (another legal defense) then the trans panic defense should, at the very lest, be a mitigating factor. The reason behind this is that I believe that it is a reasonable assumption to have a heat of passion or temp. insanity against a person who did not disclose that they are indeed a man or a woman. Who honestly (besides VERY open minded people) would be ok with being tricked into sex with someone who was the same sex. I don't think the average person would be. Change my view EDIT: **VIEW CHANGED** this can be an inflammatory defense, heat of passion is similar enough so that if the need be it could be used. By giving this defense it's own name it could inflame jurors into thinking that it was the victim that deserved it and bring in evidence not based on facts but rather based on outside ideas. View changed. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The "Trans-Panic" defense is a valid defense and should be an acceptable defense California (where it has been barred). I support transsexual and transgender rights, but I feel like this defense, when used sometimes and under some circumstances does hold water. In short this is the trans panic defense (also used for gays but I think that gay is much different than trans when it comes to this topic and for the sake of this CMV I will not defend the gay panic defense) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense I think that it can be a valid response to rape by deception, this was the case in Scottland. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/man-%E2%80%98guilty%E2%80%99-fraud-not-telling-girlfriend-he-was-trans070313 The rape by deception rule has been used in the US. Just not on trans people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception Here is a more organized point of view: If a trans person commits fraud rape, and the person snaps in a heat of passion (another legal defense) then the trans panic defense should, at the very lest, be a mitigating factor. The reason behind this is that I believe that it is a reasonable assumption to have a heat of passion or temp. insanity against a person who did not disclose that they are indeed a man or a woman. Who honestly (besides VERY open minded people) would be ok with being tricked into sex with someone who was the same sex. I don't think the average person would be. Change my view EDIT: **VIEW CHANGED** this can be an inflammatory defense, heat of passion is similar enough so that if the need be it could be used. By giving this defense it's own name it could inflame jurors into thinking that it was the victim that deserved it and bring in evidence not based on facts but rather based on outside ideas. View changed.

t3_42pqvp

CMV: Trying marijuana once in a state where it is legal could not possibly be harmful for the average person.

Marijuana is nonaddictive, not giving you any sort of cancers like smoking tobacco would, just a plant. Why could it possibly be dangerous to just have it once? Yet, parents still tell their children to never touch it, as if it were some horrible thing. It's even less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. I'm sure there's exceptions with certain allergies and such, but for the average person, trying it once is fine. As long as the person gets it from a reputable source and has a reasonable amount, it's fine.

CMV: Trying marijuana once in a state where it is legal could not possibly be harmful for the average person. Marijuana is nonaddictive, not giving you any sort of cancers like smoking tobacco would, just a plant. Why could it possibly be dangerous to just have it once? Yet, parents still tell their children to never touch it, as if it were some horrible thing. It's even less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. I'm sure there's exceptions with certain allergies and such, but for the average person, trying it once is fine. As long as the person gets it from a reputable source and has a reasonable amount, it's fine.

t3_25dswv

CMV: I believe that people are attempting to replace the gender binary with something much worse.

Disclaimer: I know all of this is really easy to say from the perspective of a cis-gendered straight wasp. ------ Through efforts to enforce a gender spectrum I feel as though social activists, gender studies academics, etc... have created an even more heavily enforced form of gendernormativity complete with caste system. **Discretization of gender** Classifying someone's gender-sex-sexuality categorization has become as ridiculous and pointless as classifying genre's of metal songs. instead of forcing someone into one of two larger boxes, now we're forcing them into innumerable extremely tiny boxes. **Caste System** One of the biggest problems with these boxes is the ignorant bigoted people who would normally not know the difference between a transexual, transvestite, queer, gay, whatever person now have a hierarchy of things that they view as weird/different to target with hate-speech, assault, harassment, etc... the smaller the box, the bigger the target (which anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes on the internet knows). **Solution(??)** In my opinion the real issue, and what people should be trying to claim/enforce is that gender does not exist. Trans-gendered people do not exist because you can do whatever you want. I know people are going to take that comment the wrong way, but what makes a trans person? Someone who identifies as being of the gender typically associated with the opposite sex? That shouldn't exist. In a perfect world, all clothing/mannerisms/personalities would be as ubiquitous as the t-shirt/jeans. Assuming you live in a place with predominately educated sane people, you can act however you want, say whatever you want, dress however you want, and be however you want. Some people will like you and some people won't. That being said, I think the goal should be to make the world a place with predominantly educated sane people. **TL;DR** I think people who are running away from the boxes of "man" and "woman" should try not to fall into a more confining trap. The goal should be to teach people to include, not to distinguish

CMV: I believe that people are attempting to replace the gender binary with something much worse. Disclaimer: I know all of this is really easy to say from the perspective of a cis-gendered straight wasp. ------ Through efforts to enforce a gender spectrum I feel as though social activists, gender studies academics, etc... have created an even more heavily enforced form of gendernormativity complete with caste system. **Discretization of gender** Classifying someone's gender-sex-sexuality categorization has become as ridiculous and pointless as classifying genre's of metal songs. instead of forcing someone into one of two larger boxes, now we're forcing them into innumerable extremely tiny boxes. **Caste System** One of the biggest problems with these boxes is the ignorant bigoted people who would normally not know the difference between a transexual, transvestite, queer, gay, whatever person now have a hierarchy of things that they view as weird/different to target with hate-speech, assault, harassment, etc... the smaller the box, the bigger the target (which anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes on the internet knows). **Solution(??)** In my opinion the real issue, and what people should be trying to claim/enforce is that gender does not exist. Trans-gendered people do not exist because you can do whatever you want. I know people are going to take that comment the wrong way, but what makes a trans person? Someone who identifies as being of the gender typically associated with the opposite sex? That shouldn't exist. In a perfect world, all clothing/mannerisms/personalities would be as ubiquitous as the t-shirt/jeans. Assuming you live in a place with predominately educated sane people, you can act however you want, say whatever you want, dress however you want, and be however you want. Some people will like you and some people won't. That being said, I think the goal should be to make the world a place with predominantly educated sane people. **TL;DR** I think people who are running away from the boxes of "man" and "woman" should try not to fall into a more confining trap. The goal should be to teach people to include, not to distinguish

t3_21pf8w

CMV: I don't think that both men and women tennis players should be payed equally. In fact I find it sexist that women are paid the same.

To begin, women and men receive the same prize money at the end of a grand slam, see [here](http://news.yahoo.com/prize-money-2012-wimbledon-mens-womens-singles-players-163500890--ten.html). I have two problems with this: 1. Men play 5 sets and women play 3. Even your most radical feminist or MRA believes in the ideal of EQUAL pay for EQUAL work. This seems to be in stark contradiction to any idea of equality. I am all for making women play 5 sets too, I think it is sexist that in this day and age people assume that women can't manage 5 sets. 2. More importantly perhaps, men's tennis is the far more popular of the two because, to put it bluntly, men are better at playing tennis. Men are stronger, more agile and have better technique, leading to an overall more enthralling viewing experience. Therefore, more people watch it and bring in greater revenue for the sport. It is ok for men to make more money in this case as men actually generate more money for the sport. I cite how in pornography, women get paid significantly more than men for the same/similar work because they bring in more money. That is just capitalism, your pay is dictated not only by how much work you do, but also what your work has to offer to the respective company. Also, don't resort to calling it tokenism. It is not a symbol for equality, it is the opposite. It is obviously the way it is for a reason, so please CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think that both men and women tennis players should be payed equally. In fact I find it sexist that women are paid the same. To begin, women and men receive the same prize money at the end of a grand slam, see [here](http://news.yahoo.com/prize-money-2012-wimbledon-mens-womens-singles-players-163500890--ten.html). I have two problems with this: 1. Men play 5 sets and women play 3. Even your most radical feminist or MRA believes in the ideal of EQUAL pay for EQUAL work. This seems to be in stark contradiction to any idea of equality. I am all for making women play 5 sets too, I think it is sexist that in this day and age people assume that women can't manage 5 sets. 2. More importantly perhaps, men's tennis is the far more popular of the two because, to put it bluntly, men are better at playing tennis. Men are stronger, more agile and have better technique, leading to an overall more enthralling viewing experience. Therefore, more people watch it and bring in greater revenue for the sport. It is ok for men to make more money in this case as men actually generate more money for the sport. I cite how in pornography, women get paid significantly more than men for the same/similar work because they bring in more money. That is just capitalism, your pay is dictated not only by how much work you do, but also what your work has to offer to the respective company. Also, don't resort to calling it tokenism. It is not a symbol for equality, it is the opposite. It is obviously the way it is for a reason, so please CMV!

t3_2vmay9

CMV: Power, Education (at all levels), Health care, Internet & phone service, housing and clothing should be provided by the state for free

Power should be free. Education (at all levels) should be free. Health care should be free. Internet and phone service should be free. At least one device (like a cheap lap top and cell phone) for using both should be free. Enough food and water to eat healthily should be free. A home at least large enough for you and any family members to have some privacy should be free. Clothing should be free. Police protection and justice should be free. I think it's unreasonable for any of those things to not be free because I see them as the bare minimum for creating a situation where lack of resources/money can't prevent people from achieving in life. Not put everyone on an equal playing field but at least create a situation where someone (at least some who isn't disabled) can't end up in situation where improving their lot is totally beyond their means. Like for example if you're potentially smart enough to get a job you'd never end up in a situation where you're unable to apply because you can't provide contact details. I think that it's reasonable to say that if you want something like say.... an X-box, that it's a luxury and you should find the money to get one your self. I don't think it's reasonable to have a society where we say that then provide no possible means to get the money regardless of effort I think that it's reasonable to say that your voice on a topic won't be a well herd as people you've studied it more than you. I don't think it's reasonable to say that then deny a person the ability to go to university and study it _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Power, Education (at all levels), Health care, Internet & phone service, housing and clothing should be provided by the state for free. Power should be free. Education (at all levels) should be free. Health care should be free. Internet and phone service should be free. At least one device (like a cheap lap top and cell phone) for using both should be free. Enough food and water to eat healthily should be free. A home at least large enough for you and any family members to have some privacy should be free. Clothing should be free. Police protection and justice should be free. I think it's unreasonable for any of those things to not be free because I see them as the bare minimum for creating a situation where lack of resources/money can't prevent people from achieving in life. Not put everyone on an equal playing field but at least create a situation where someone (at least some who isn't disabled) can't end up in situation where improving their lot is totally beyond their means. Like for example if you're potentially smart enough to get a job you'd never end up in a situation where you're unable to apply because you can't provide contact details. I think that it's reasonable to say that if you want something like say.... an X-box, that it's a luxury and you should find the money to get one your self. I don't think it's reasonable to have a society where we say that then provide no possible means to get the money regardless of effort I think that it's reasonable to say that your voice on a topic won't be a well herd as people you've studied it more than you. I don't think it's reasonable to say that then deny a person the ability to go to university and study it

t3_1a3tc6

I think obesity is a choice. CMV

I personally believe that if you are fat/obese, you chose that road. You personally decided to not take the steps required to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Even if you have a medical condition (ex. diabetes) you still decided you aren't going to maintain your health. CMV.

I think obesity is a choice. CMV. I personally believe that if you are fat/obese, you chose that road. You personally decided to not take the steps required to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Even if you have a medical condition (ex. diabetes) you still decided you aren't going to maintain your health. CMV.

t3_3fbbh8

CMV: the slippery slope argument does not apply to well-defined, small bodies of authority

Commonly, whenever some kind of social change is made in society, there are cries of censorship and that banning one thing will inevitably lead to another. In the case of reddit, the "free speech advocates" claim that banning subs like /r/coontown will lead us down a slippery slope until other "controversial" subs are banned. Although the [slippery slope argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) is mostly used fallaciously, I don't believe that it even *can* be used against well-defined bodies of authority. What I'm defining as small bodies of authority are individuals (like moderators on a subreddit) and/or teams (like the reddit admin team, or the mod team on a subreddit). Why I believe the slippery slope doesn't apply is because these groups of individuals will make some change (eg. banning racism) but that is unlikely to result in some sudden change of heart into going further and banning more and more. eg. if a moderator decides to ban racism, it doesn't make sense to say it'll lead into a slippery slope where more things will be banned There's no conceivable mechanism to go from point A to point B when we're talking about individuals with their own beliefs.

CMV: the slippery slope argument does not apply to well-defined, small bodies of authority. Commonly, whenever some kind of social change is made in society, there are cries of censorship and that banning one thing will inevitably lead to another. In the case of reddit, the "free speech advocates" claim that banning subs like /r/coontown will lead us down a slippery slope until other "controversial" subs are banned. Although the [slippery slope argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) is mostly used fallaciously, I don't believe that it even *can* be used against well-defined bodies of authority. What I'm defining as small bodies of authority are individuals (like moderators on a subreddit) and/or teams (like the reddit admin team, or the mod team on a subreddit). Why I believe the slippery slope doesn't apply is because these groups of individuals will make some change (eg. banning racism) but that is unlikely to result in some sudden change of heart into going further and banning more and more. eg. if a moderator decides to ban racism, it doesn't make sense to say it'll lead into a slippery slope where more things will be banned There's no conceivable mechanism to go from point A to point B when we're talking about individuals with their own beliefs.

t3_4bsyuy

CMV: The internet inherantly makes all social movements toxic

EDIT: *TBH this may not have been the best forum to post this view in because I wasn't very strongly committed to my view here, and I was more interested in stimulating the discussion. As soon as I read all the responses I found little tidbits here and there that I could agree with and found my view change pretty quickly. You all make good points, and I guess its more the culture we create that allows for the toxicity than the internet itself. I love reddit but I do think the culture we've set up in political subreddits is detrimental and harmful to civic dialogue (along with much social media in general like Twitter).* So I'm relatively new to Reddit. I've been a member of the Bernie subreddit, but something that bothers me is how conspiratorial and downright hostile it can become. I agree with the ideas of most of the people but infighting,, hate and negativity pervade a lot of the posts. Of course, if you go anywhere else, you'll see the same. TheDonald isn't any better. It made me wonder why its like this; why we seem so incapable of civility online. Of course most people equate civility with censorship, and as much as I value free speech, I think they're pretty different. Take this subreddit for example; there are specific rules and norms we agree to follow; we'll abstain from name calling and smearing, and stick to the points we're discussing. These are norms and they keep the discussion civil and respectful. In real life physical movements where people meet face to face, there are basic social norms we all follow and are all acquainted with that keep the movement from derailing. We don't shout, argue, or name call. If someone is an asshole, they will probably not last long in the movement, not because they are being censored, but because they can't function socially. The internet removes all of our norms. People say whatever they want, whenever they want. If someone tries to curb their language, they are accused of censorship, political correctness, and being a SJW. On the other hand, people who out of good intention do try to uphold civility can overdo it and genuinely be too politically correct, censoring, and SJW, at the expense of ideas and genuine discussion. To summarize: the lack of basic social norms that you have in any social group makes the internet a toxic place to try to have a movement. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The internet inherantly makes all social movements toxic. EDIT: *TBH this may not have been the best forum to post this view in because I wasn't very strongly committed to my view here, and I was more interested in stimulating the discussion. As soon as I read all the responses I found little tidbits here and there that I could agree with and found my view change pretty quickly. You all make good points, and I guess its more the culture we create that allows for the toxicity than the internet itself. I love reddit but I do think the culture we've set up in political subreddits is detrimental and harmful to civic dialogue (along with much social media in general like Twitter).* So I'm relatively new to Reddit. I've been a member of the Bernie subreddit, but something that bothers me is how conspiratorial and downright hostile it can become. I agree with the ideas of most of the people but infighting,, hate and negativity pervade a lot of the posts. Of course, if you go anywhere else, you'll see the same. TheDonald isn't any better. It made me wonder why its like this; why we seem so incapable of civility online. Of course most people equate civility with censorship, and as much as I value free speech, I think they're pretty different. Take this subreddit for example; there are specific rules and norms we agree to follow; we'll abstain from name calling and smearing, and stick to the points we're discussing. These are norms and they keep the discussion civil and respectful. In real life physical movements where people meet face to face, there are basic social norms we all follow and are all acquainted with that keep the movement from derailing. We don't shout, argue, or name call. If someone is an asshole, they will probably not last long in the movement, not because they are being censored, but because they can't function socially. The internet removes all of our norms. People say whatever they want, whenever they want. If someone tries to curb their language, they are accused of censorship, political correctness, and being a SJW. On the other hand, people who out of good intention do try to uphold civility can overdo it and genuinely be too politically correct, censoring, and SJW, at the expense of ideas and genuine discussion. To summarize: the lack of basic social norms that you have in any social group makes the internet a toxic place to try to have a movement.

t3_39an4v

CMV: Vegetarianism is senseless and is actually equal to being against humans

First of, this is only talking about people who are vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons. If you are a vegetarian for any other reason, this does not apply Being a vegetarian is more expensive than eating meat. Therefore, you need to get this money from elsewhere. This ultimately ends in a society having less money/resources, which they can give to the poor. Thus, you are kind of killing humans in trying to save animals. So vegetarians are basically putting other species of animals above their own, which I would say is objectively bad. Of course, this is not how society works, you are not directly killing people by being a vegetarian, but you are not directly helping animals either, so that is not an argument. I fail to see any argument against this. What about you?

CMV: Vegetarianism is senseless and is actually equal to being against humans. First of, this is only talking about people who are vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons. If you are a vegetarian for any other reason, this does not apply Being a vegetarian is more expensive than eating meat. Therefore, you need to get this money from elsewhere. This ultimately ends in a society having less money/resources, which they can give to the poor. Thus, you are kind of killing humans in trying to save animals. So vegetarians are basically putting other species of animals above their own, which I would say is objectively bad. Of course, this is not how society works, you are not directly killing people by being a vegetarian, but you are not directly helping animals either, so that is not an argument. I fail to see any argument against this. What about you?

t3_3ngwjc

CMV: The best option for Greece is to leave the eurozone

I'm only halfway through getting my econ degree and while I've done a bit of research on the subject I wouldn't say it's a substantial amount. So I expect there could be some issues with my view and I could very easily end up over on /r/badeconomics but here it goes... I believe Greece's best bet would be to leave the eurozone. As it stands right now Greece has way too much debt to pay back and does not have to ability or control to do so. There has been some debt restructuring/forgiveness/aid but it all comes contingent on austerity measures. These austerity measures, besides creating many social woes (increased poverty and joblessness, reduced benefits and public health), also hurt the overall economy of Greece, pushing it further into recession and increasing the debt it owes. Greece also has limited control over its monetary policy, as it can't print money or lower the European Central Bank rates. This can be remedied by leaving the eurozone and creating a new currency (the Drachma). This would allow Greece to escape the crippling fiscal austerity measures and give it control over the country's money supply. With full autonomy, the Greek government can follow expansionary fiscal and monetary policy to bring the country out of the depression it is currently in. Greece could print drachma to repay its debts. This new currency will be valued much less than the euro but this could help the Greek export sector by making greek goods more competitive overseas. The tourism industry (one of the largest components of the Greek economy) would also benefit greatly as tourists' money goes further. Of course this will be considered a default, but there doesn’t seem to be any viable way for Greece to pay back the debt anyway, and lenders most likely know this. They probably already realize they’re going to take a hit on their poor investment, a Greek exit would just confirm it. Countries have defaulted in the past and have been able to move past it. As Greece begins to recover investors will probably see the emerging market opportunity and invest despite defaulting in the past. Critics of this point of view will often cite the symbolic nature of the EU (countries coming together for peace, ending war in Europe, etc.). But if peace and unity are the goals then a Greek exit might be the best seeing as the current state of affairs has seen a massive rise in negative attitudes towards the greek people from other european countries (such as Germany) and a rise in neo-Nazi parties and sentiment in Greece itself. And of course a major argument for the Greek exit is that Greece shouldn't have been in it in the first place. It's debt-to-GDP %, among other economic traits, was never at the required level to be admitted into the eurozone. Greece leaving would just make things how they 'should' have been in the first place according to eurozone requirement. Sorry for the long post. As I said in the beginning, I'm not an expert or anything so I'm open to (and excited for) any opposing views or additional information anyone provides. Thanks. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The best option for Greece is to leave the eurozone. I'm only halfway through getting my econ degree and while I've done a bit of research on the subject I wouldn't say it's a substantial amount. So I expect there could be some issues with my view and I could very easily end up over on /r/badeconomics but here it goes... I believe Greece's best bet would be to leave the eurozone. As it stands right now Greece has way too much debt to pay back and does not have to ability or control to do so. There has been some debt restructuring/forgiveness/aid but it all comes contingent on austerity measures. These austerity measures, besides creating many social woes (increased poverty and joblessness, reduced benefits and public health), also hurt the overall economy of Greece, pushing it further into recession and increasing the debt it owes. Greece also has limited control over its monetary policy, as it can't print money or lower the European Central Bank rates. This can be remedied by leaving the eurozone and creating a new currency (the Drachma). This would allow Greece to escape the crippling fiscal austerity measures and give it control over the country's money supply. With full autonomy, the Greek government can follow expansionary fiscal and monetary policy to bring the country out of the depression it is currently in. Greece could print drachma to repay its debts. This new currency will be valued much less than the euro but this could help the Greek export sector by making greek goods more competitive overseas. The tourism industry (one of the largest components of the Greek economy) would also benefit greatly as tourists' money goes further. Of course this will be considered a default, but there doesn’t seem to be any viable way for Greece to pay back the debt anyway, and lenders most likely know this. They probably already realize they’re going to take a hit on their poor investment, a Greek exit would just confirm it. Countries have defaulted in the past and have been able to move past it. As Greece begins to recover investors will probably see the emerging market opportunity and invest despite defaulting in the past. Critics of this point of view will often cite the symbolic nature of the EU (countries coming together for peace, ending war in Europe, etc.). But if peace and unity are the goals then a Greek exit might be the best seeing as the current state of affairs has seen a massive rise in negative attitudes towards the greek people from other european countries (such as Germany) and a rise in neo-Nazi parties and sentiment in Greece itself. And of course a major argument for the Greek exit is that Greece shouldn't have been in it in the first place. It's debt-to-GDP %, among other economic traits, was never at the required level to be admitted into the eurozone. Greece leaving would just make things how they 'should' have been in the first place according to eurozone requirement. Sorry for the long post. As I said in the beginning, I'm not an expert or anything so I'm open to (and excited for) any opposing views or additional information anyone provides. Thanks.

t3_1ibg1p

I don't think the Trayvon Martin case was racist at all. CMV

For me, the case was just a guy (who happened to be white), spotted a suspicious guy (who happened to be black). They cross paths, a misunderstanding occurs, and one ends up dead during a fight. Personally, I think Zimmerman would have done the same (ie following someone) for ANY person who looked suspicious. I also don't think the outcome of the case was racist either, since it was done in self defense, especially considering the injuries Zimmerman sustained. When all was said and done... yeah it's sad a teenager died, but I don't think there were any racial overtones at all. CMV, please.

I don't think the Trayvon Martin case was racist at all. CMV. For me, the case was just a guy (who happened to be white), spotted a suspicious guy (who happened to be black). They cross paths, a misunderstanding occurs, and one ends up dead during a fight. Personally, I think Zimmerman would have done the same (ie following someone) for ANY person who looked suspicious. I also don't think the outcome of the case was racist either, since it was done in self defense, especially considering the injuries Zimmerman sustained. When all was said and done... yeah it's sad a teenager died, but I don't think there were any racial overtones at all. CMV, please.

t3_3enpq9

CMV: The more people publish proof that they have successfully circumvented cybersecurity measures, the better off we all are, so this should be encouraged somehow

I basically think it's stupid that there could be a thousand people who've stolen credit card data from a website and the 1001st, who decides to publish the credit card info publicly, gets the same punishment. This is despite of the fact that the 1001st person publishes knowing they are more likely to get caught, makes everyone aware of the hack and therefore gives the company motivation/pressure to close whatever attack vector is being exploited and the general public the motivation to stop using the company's services. If the first person to steal the data had some motivation to publish the hack or its results other than just bragging rights, then there would be ~1k less number sets floating around on CC trading forums. I mean sure the first person could've put on a white hat and just told the company or the media about the exploit but from what I can tell this happens much more rarely than the above (outside of people who do this for a living, obviously) and is much harder to incentivize (and it is much easier for the company and the media to just ignore it).

CMV: The more people publish proof that they have successfully circumvented cybersecurity measures, the better off we all are, so this should be encouraged somehow. I basically think it's stupid that there could be a thousand people who've stolen credit card data from a website and the 1001st, who decides to publish the credit card info publicly, gets the same punishment. This is despite of the fact that the 1001st person publishes knowing they are more likely to get caught, makes everyone aware of the hack and therefore gives the company motivation/pressure to close whatever attack vector is being exploited and the general public the motivation to stop using the company's services. If the first person to steal the data had some motivation to publish the hack or its results other than just bragging rights, then there would be ~1k less number sets floating around on CC trading forums. I mean sure the first person could've put on a white hat and just told the company or the media about the exploit but from what I can tell this happens much more rarely than the above (outside of people who do this for a living, obviously) and is much harder to incentivize (and it is much easier for the company and the media to just ignore it).

t3_1ghlbq

I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV

Why do we focus on guns if the real problem is that shooters are mentally unstable? The stigma and unavailability (at least in the US) of mental health assistance seems to enable these assailants and other bullies/molesters/abusers to fall through the cracks and hurt others when they're really just hurt themselves. This is absolutely not to excuse any of their hurtful and dangerous actions but merely to point out that we should be helping these people not be mentally unstable instead of trying to take away one potential weapon to harm others with. CMV! EDIT: I'm thinking in particular about high toll gun violence, the kind that actually gets voters' attention: VA Tech shooting, Newtown CT, Columbine CO, Anders Breivik, etc. Yes these are the minority, but they have much larger death tolls and larger effects on policy and social discourse.

I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV. Why do we focus on guns if the real problem is that shooters are mentally unstable? The stigma and unavailability (at least in the US) of mental health assistance seems to enable these assailants and other bullies/molesters/abusers to fall through the cracks and hurt others when they're really just hurt themselves. This is absolutely not to excuse any of their hurtful and dangerous actions but merely to point out that we should be helping these people not be mentally unstable instead of trying to take away one potential weapon to harm others with. CMV! EDIT: I'm thinking in particular about high toll gun violence, the kind that actually gets voters' attention: VA Tech shooting, Newtown CT, Columbine CO, Anders Breivik, etc. Yes these are the minority, but they have much larger death tolls and larger effects on policy and social discourse.

t3_25ug4a

CMV: Dumper is often more well-established than the dumpee

I cannot find an example where a well-established figure was dumped by their partner. * John Lennon dumped Cynthia for Yoko Ono. * Paul McCartney dumped Dot Rhones who was pregnant, then cheated on Jane Asher, then divorced Heather Mills. * Stephen Fry left Daniel Cohen after 14 year relationship for Steven Webb. * Albert Einstein married Mileva Maric who mothered 2 of his children. He then divorced her and soon married his cousin, Elsa. After that, he cheated on Elsa with his secretary Betty Neumann. It seems like everyone I admire is hardly ever at the short end of a relationship. I think there must be more to this, but I can't see any evidence to suggest otherwise. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Dumper is often more well-established than the dumpee. I cannot find an example where a well-established figure was dumped by their partner. * John Lennon dumped Cynthia for Yoko Ono. * Paul McCartney dumped Dot Rhones who was pregnant, then cheated on Jane Asher, then divorced Heather Mills. * Stephen Fry left Daniel Cohen after 14 year relationship for Steven Webb. * Albert Einstein married Mileva Maric who mothered 2 of his children. He then divorced her and soon married his cousin, Elsa. After that, he cheated on Elsa with his secretary Betty Neumann. It seems like everyone I admire is hardly ever at the short end of a relationship. I think there must be more to this, but I can't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.

t3_6by968

CMV: if the U.S. transferred all resources currently invested in preventing terrorism to preventing drunk driving, Americans would be safer

The U.S. government spends incredible amounts of taxpayer money on preventing terrorism, and American citizens are willing to put up with significant inconveniences to aid that effort. But terrorist attacks in the U.S. are extremely rare. Despite the infrequency, people seem generally unwilling to live with any risk of a terrorist attack, and insist on massive spending for protection. On the other hand, even though drunk driving causes many more deaths and injuries than terrorism, there are minimal resources invested and people are unwilling to accept any inconveniences for the sake of protecting against future incidents. If anti-terrorist resources (and citizen willingness to put up with inconvenience) were diverted to preventing drunk driving, more American lives would be saved and injuries prevented. As one example, the U.S. government could mandate that all automobiles be fitted with breathalyzer-start devices (with installation fully paid by the government). While inconvenient for the vast majority who would never drive drunk, it is no more inconvenient than what we go through to get on a plane, and would likely be much more beneficial to society. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: if the U.S. transferred all resources currently invested in preventing terrorism to preventing drunk driving, Americans would be safer. The U.S. government spends incredible amounts of taxpayer money on preventing terrorism, and American citizens are willing to put up with significant inconveniences to aid that effort. But terrorist attacks in the U.S. are extremely rare. Despite the infrequency, people seem generally unwilling to live with any risk of a terrorist attack, and insist on massive spending for protection. On the other hand, even though drunk driving causes many more deaths and injuries than terrorism, there are minimal resources invested and people are unwilling to accept any inconveniences for the sake of protecting against future incidents. If anti-terrorist resources (and citizen willingness to put up with inconvenience) were diverted to preventing drunk driving, more American lives would be saved and injuries prevented. As one example, the U.S. government could mandate that all automobiles be fitted with breathalyzer-start devices (with installation fully paid by the government). While inconvenient for the vast majority who would never drive drunk, it is no more inconvenient than what we go through to get on a plane, and would likely be much more beneficial to society.

t3_6xf6me

CMV: Google is not a monopoly.

I have heard many people complaining about Google having a search engine monopoly on the market, and this statement is simply not true. [This](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly?s=t) is the definition of monopoly, and google does not fit the criteria. > exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market Google does not have exclusive control of the search engine market because there are other search engines such as [DuckDuckGo](https://duckduckgo.com/), or Bing. These services not being as popular as google is an accomplishment of market forces, not a failure. The fact is that google is just better than the other services *because* of the free market, and it not having a monopoly. > a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. I'm going to assume that this means the raising of prices, because if it was the ability to lower or raise prices then every company would have a monopoly. Google is forced to keep it's services free because then people would just use another service like DuckDuckGo. If google raised it's price to even a dollar they would lose a significant portion of it's users, because noone will pay money for a service that they can get for free else wear. If I had to pay money to use google docs, I would just use word. Even when Google acts dubiously (putting sponsored products at the top of searches) it still discloses the information that the websites/products are sponsored. Just because google is in it for the money does not make it a monopoly. TL;DR: Google is not a monopoly because it has competitors and can't raise the market value of search engines. Edit: [I have been convinced](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6xf6me/cmv_google_is_not_a_monopoly/dmfg89z/) that google has a monopoly on advertising, but I still hold the view that they don't hold a monopoly on their other products. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Google is not a monopoly. I have heard many people complaining about Google having a search engine monopoly on the market, and this statement is simply not true. [This](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly?s=t) is the definition of monopoly, and google does not fit the criteria. > exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market Google does not have exclusive control of the search engine market because there are other search engines such as [DuckDuckGo](https://duckduckgo.com/), or Bing. These services not being as popular as google is an accomplishment of market forces, not a failure. The fact is that google is just better than the other services *because* of the free market, and it not having a monopoly. > a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. I'm going to assume that this means the raising of prices, because if it was the ability to lower or raise prices then every company would have a monopoly. Google is forced to keep it's services free because then people would just use another service like DuckDuckGo. If google raised it's price to even a dollar they would lose a significant portion of it's users, because noone will pay money for a service that they can get for free else wear. If I had to pay money to use google docs, I would just use word. Even when Google acts dubiously (putting sponsored products at the top of searches) it still discloses the information that the websites/products are sponsored. Just because google is in it for the money does not make it a monopoly. TL;DR: Google is not a monopoly because it has competitors and can't raise the market value of search engines. Edit: [I have been convinced](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6xf6me/cmv_google_is_not_a_monopoly/dmfg89z/) that google has a monopoly on advertising, but I still hold the view that they don't hold a monopoly on their other products.

t3_4gdd40

CMV: The definition of freedom in warfares.

Today is ANZAC Day in Australia and New Zealand, it is a day where we honour the soldiers who fought in wars but also to honour the tragedy of the Galipoli campaign. **But I do not get the freedom used for Australian soldiers.** I come from a country (Korea) where there were countless invasions and I have heard and taught about the courage and sacrifices to stop the enemies invading. That's my definition of freedom, which is likely to be similar to everyone elses. However, there isn't too much in Australia. I can only count the Japanese invasions (Submarines and the Kokoda track) and for other wars it was more of giving up their lives to fight for an ally that couldn't be ignored - Case applies for WW1 and Vietnam War, where was this political issue that Australia was dragged into. Even compared to other countries, Australia does not have that kind of freedom fighting - Americans had the fathers who fought the Poms(Brits), French had the Resistance during the German occupancy and many other countries that fought for independence. I have struggled to go light on people talking about freedom in warfares. And is the definition a parable? That's all I want to know as well To conclude: Australia does not have the fight for freedom compared to other countries.

CMV: The definition of freedom in warfares. Today is ANZAC Day in Australia and New Zealand, it is a day where we honour the soldiers who fought in wars but also to honour the tragedy of the Galipoli campaign. **But I do not get the freedom used for Australian soldiers.** I come from a country (Korea) where there were countless invasions and I have heard and taught about the courage and sacrifices to stop the enemies invading. That's my definition of freedom, which is likely to be similar to everyone elses. However, there isn't too much in Australia. I can only count the Japanese invasions (Submarines and the Kokoda track) and for other wars it was more of giving up their lives to fight for an ally that couldn't be ignored - Case applies for WW1 and Vietnam War, where was this political issue that Australia was dragged into. Even compared to other countries, Australia does not have that kind of freedom fighting - Americans had the fathers who fought the Poms(Brits), French had the Resistance during the German occupancy and many other countries that fought for independence. I have struggled to go light on people talking about freedom in warfares. And is the definition a parable? That's all I want to know as well To conclude: Australia does not have the fight for freedom compared to other countries.

t3_1oexzo

Our lives are our own, so we should have the right to end if disease and pain are likely to make up the remainder of it. CMV.

Before you refer me to /r/suicidewatch, I'm not suicidal by any means, but have been meditating on this topic due to a recent suicide of a friend. For some individuals, they enter a stage in life knowing that the (near) future is painful and miserable. An individual with Huntington's Disease for instance, or a person whom has a cancer-causing virus (such as certain strains of HPV). The present moment may easily be embraced, but may also remain tolerable in condition that one has the control to end their life once a serious disease settles in and significantly changes that individual's life for the worse. A counterargument is often the question of whether said person is of sound mental health when contemplating suicide. But such an argument can only be made by someone who does not understand daily misery. I feel it is selfish of others to deny a suffering individual their own suicide, simply because it'll negatively impact the lives of those close to him/her. This individual is in pain, suffering profoundly physically (and often mentally), and people want to keep that person going for their own mental security. CMV.

Our lives are our own, so we should have the right to end if disease and pain are likely to make up the remainder of it. CMV. Before you refer me to /r/suicidewatch, I'm not suicidal by any means, but have been meditating on this topic due to a recent suicide of a friend. For some individuals, they enter a stage in life knowing that the (near) future is painful and miserable. An individual with Huntington's Disease for instance, or a person whom has a cancer-causing virus (such as certain strains of HPV). The present moment may easily be embraced, but may also remain tolerable in condition that one has the control to end their life once a serious disease settles in and significantly changes that individual's life for the worse. A counterargument is often the question of whether said person is of sound mental health when contemplating suicide. But such an argument can only be made by someone who does not understand daily misery. I feel it is selfish of others to deny a suffering individual their own suicide, simply because it'll negatively impact the lives of those close to him/her. This individual is in pain, suffering profoundly physically (and often mentally), and people want to keep that person going for their own mental security. CMV.

t3_31bmb6

CMV: George Carlin is just another loud mouthed guy with a political view

A few years ago I saw him do comedy online. Obviously his position in politics is clear as it's very obvious in his jokes. For the record, his stand up was actually good until he got a little too old and radical. But I digress. I feel that George Carlin did not really have much to offer in arguments. I've watched interviews of him and all he did was yell over other people and say buzz phrases like "war is just old men sending young kids to die" and shares his sentiments about the government is a business and doesn't care about the citizens. Now don't get me wrong, there is a lot of truth to what he says. But he's not really saying anything. He never managed to support his claims properly or get past the first layer of his argument. He just spouted claims and watched arguments unfold based on very little. In reddit language, George Carlin is that guy who reposts very obvious TIL's then watches his karma skyrocket and people circle jerk in the comments. EDIT: Changed from present to past tense. Excuse any present tense errors. EDIT#2: After reading the comments, I'd like to clarify that im not attacking his comedy. I'm focusing on his political views and views of the west basically. Reread my post with this in mind if that helps clear up any confusion about what my topic is about. I was a little vague, my bad.

CMV: George Carlin is just another loud mouthed guy with a political view. A few years ago I saw him do comedy online. Obviously his position in politics is clear as it's very obvious in his jokes. For the record, his stand up was actually good until he got a little too old and radical. But I digress. I feel that George Carlin did not really have much to offer in arguments. I've watched interviews of him and all he did was yell over other people and say buzz phrases like "war is just old men sending young kids to die" and shares his sentiments about the government is a business and doesn't care about the citizens. Now don't get me wrong, there is a lot of truth to what he says. But he's not really saying anything. He never managed to support his claims properly or get past the first layer of his argument. He just spouted claims and watched arguments unfold based on very little. In reddit language, George Carlin is that guy who reposts very obvious TIL's then watches his karma skyrocket and people circle jerk in the comments. EDIT: Changed from present to past tense. Excuse any present tense errors. EDIT#2: After reading the comments, I'd like to clarify that im not attacking his comedy. I'm focusing on his political views and views of the west basically. Reread my post with this in mind if that helps clear up any confusion about what my topic is about. I was a little vague, my bad.

t3_5uht50

CMV: Peaceful demonstration does not affect government policy

It does not appear to me that the government makes policy based on the number of people to show up to a protest. Nor are they influenced by hashtag activism, petitions, sit-ins, highway shut down, general strikes. None of these methods seem to really get the desired results. At best they seem like a cathartic and symbolic method of participation. At worst they make people feel like they've done something to help and alleviates any desire to actually participate in the democratic process. I feel I should state that I'm opposed to violence as a means to control, so I'm not suggesting that should be the alternate strategy. Maybe I don't have enough examples of where a peaceful demonstration resulted in a change in legislation... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Peaceful demonstration does not affect government policy. It does not appear to me that the government makes policy based on the number of people to show up to a protest. Nor are they influenced by hashtag activism, petitions, sit-ins, highway shut down, general strikes. None of these methods seem to really get the desired results. At best they seem like a cathartic and symbolic method of participation. At worst they make people feel like they've done something to help and alleviates any desire to actually participate in the democratic process. I feel I should state that I'm opposed to violence as a means to control, so I'm not suggesting that should be the alternate strategy. Maybe I don't have enough examples of where a peaceful demonstration resulted in a change in legislation...

t3_5nwnd4

CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee.

The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say "Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump." That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say "Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump." That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us?

t3_4qnjv4

CMV: Fat shaming is real and wrong and hurtful and should be opposed

At the heart of my belief is that people should butt out. About the sex preferences of others, their religious beliefs, their race, their background and their weight. But we judge actions, you might cry. The fatties have chosen an unhealthy path and we're judging their choices as we might a flasher or a murderer. And what about The Cost To Society. And Think Of The Children. But, as was perfectly expressed on the recent "Call Me Fat" episode of This American Life it all really boils down to "Ewwww. They're icky". Everything else is really post hoc justification. I'll split my argument as follows If the facet of fatness that you wish to shame only affects them (you don't find them attractive, interesting, healthy or impressive) then this is just a tolerance and acceptance issue. In my view, these criticisms are just tantamount to good old fashioned bullying but a socially acceptable form of it. It should stop being socially acceptable. It it affects others (their poor, poor, fat children) then there's at least a veneer of objectiveness to it (lack of consent to a lifetime of fatness). This criticism can be split into the health aspects and the social aspects. The social aspect is basically just blaming the bullied (they'll have a tough time being accepted). The other kids need to behave better, not the fat bullied kid. As for childhood diabetes and all those important factors - I totally agree, it would be better if the kids were thinner. But they're not and belittling fat people and boiling the issue down to simple weakness is lazy and comforting and simple. The worst kind of lazy. It doesn't mean that being fat is good. It just means that if you can't help, you shouldn't make it harder on them by creating a buzz of hatred and disgust around them. The health justification for disapproving of fat people only makes sense if your disapproval is supportive and loving. If you're not supportive and loving then quit pretending you care about their health. What about the cost to society? Well, in the US at least private health insurance isolates those costs and where they become public they're not really affecting your life. It's just an excuse to let out the inner bully. I struggle with the idea of people belittling others without being pulled up for it. Whether they're slut shaming or fat shaming, hating gays or trans people. If you're looking down your snout at people and feeling better than them then you're truly missing the point of being human. Improve yourself, help others. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Fat shaming is real and wrong and hurtful and should be opposed. At the heart of my belief is that people should butt out. About the sex preferences of others, their religious beliefs, their race, their background and their weight. But we judge actions, you might cry. The fatties have chosen an unhealthy path and we're judging their choices as we might a flasher or a murderer. And what about The Cost To Society. And Think Of The Children. But, as was perfectly expressed on the recent "Call Me Fat" episode of This American Life it all really boils down to "Ewwww. They're icky". Everything else is really post hoc justification. I'll split my argument as follows If the facet of fatness that you wish to shame only affects them (you don't find them attractive, interesting, healthy or impressive) then this is just a tolerance and acceptance issue. In my view, these criticisms are just tantamount to good old fashioned bullying but a socially acceptable form of it. It should stop being socially acceptable. It it affects others (their poor, poor, fat children) then there's at least a veneer of objectiveness to it (lack of consent to a lifetime of fatness). This criticism can be split into the health aspects and the social aspects. The social aspect is basically just blaming the bullied (they'll have a tough time being accepted). The other kids need to behave better, not the fat bullied kid. As for childhood diabetes and all those important factors - I totally agree, it would be better if the kids were thinner. But they're not and belittling fat people and boiling the issue down to simple weakness is lazy and comforting and simple. The worst kind of lazy. It doesn't mean that being fat is good. It just means that if you can't help, you shouldn't make it harder on them by creating a buzz of hatred and disgust around them. The health justification for disapproving of fat people only makes sense if your disapproval is supportive and loving. If you're not supportive and loving then quit pretending you care about their health. What about the cost to society? Well, in the US at least private health insurance isolates those costs and where they become public they're not really affecting your life. It's just an excuse to let out the inner bully. I struggle with the idea of people belittling others without being pulled up for it. Whether they're slut shaming or fat shaming, hating gays or trans people. If you're looking down your snout at people and feeling better than them then you're truly missing the point of being human. Improve yourself, help others.

t3_4siav2

CMV: It's not racist if it's true.

Racism is an unfair opinion about a person or individual based on their heritage, skin color, nationality, etc. If you assume something bad about a person, and you are wrong, everyone in the world will jump to calling you a racist. But are you a racist if you are right? Say you see a black guy walking towards you. It's racist to assume he will mug you. but then he mugs you. are you a racist for predicting behavior? Can facts be racist? if i mention the Mexicans who mow my apartments lawns, but they are Mexicans who mow my lawns, am I a racist? or if you cite accurate prison demographics, are you a racist? I think if you make an assumption about a person that is not in their favor on no grounds other than race, you're a racist. But only if you are wrong. If you are right, then aren't you slightly absolved of your malicious assumptions? EDIT: making negative assumptions based on race is racist. Are you the same degree of racist if your assumptions about an individual are correct? change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's not racist if it's true. Racism is an unfair opinion about a person or individual based on their heritage, skin color, nationality, etc. If you assume something bad about a person, and you are wrong, everyone in the world will jump to calling you a racist. But are you a racist if you are right? Say you see a black guy walking towards you. It's racist to assume he will mug you. but then he mugs you. are you a racist for predicting behavior? Can facts be racist? if i mention the Mexicans who mow my apartments lawns, but they are Mexicans who mow my lawns, am I a racist? or if you cite accurate prison demographics, are you a racist? I think if you make an assumption about a person that is not in their favor on no grounds other than race, you're a racist. But only if you are wrong. If you are right, then aren't you slightly absolved of your malicious assumptions? EDIT: making negative assumptions based on race is racist. Are you the same degree of racist if your assumptions about an individual are correct? change my view.

t3_1y6d19

I believe that the number one reason not to believe in any government conspiracy theories is that people are incompetent. CMV

With very few exceptions, everyone I have ever met, in any position, is barely able to perform the duties of their job. This applies equally to private industry and government (perhaps worse in government). To believe in any government conspiracy, you must believe that they are more competent at holding the conspiracy in place than those who would seek to discover or quash it. I find it impossible to believe in things like the American government having proof of aliens, simply because someone with knowledge of this would speak out. The same goes for the recent NSA discoveries...if it wasn't Snowden who released the documents, someone else would. I find it hard to correlate government being too incompetent to run so many relatively simple things, but be good about keeping vast and complex operations secret and cohesive over many years. So, CMV. If you do this, I will change the way I look at the world in substantial ways, and quite possibly find some better purpose for myself.

I believe that the number one reason not to believe in any government conspiracy theories is that people are incompetent. CMV. With very few exceptions, everyone I have ever met, in any position, is barely able to perform the duties of their job. This applies equally to private industry and government (perhaps worse in government). To believe in any government conspiracy, you must believe that they are more competent at holding the conspiracy in place than those who would seek to discover or quash it. I find it impossible to believe in things like the American government having proof of aliens, simply because someone with knowledge of this would speak out. The same goes for the recent NSA discoveries...if it wasn't Snowden who released the documents, someone else would. I find it hard to correlate government being too incompetent to run so many relatively simple things, but be good about keeping vast and complex operations secret and cohesive over many years. So, CMV. If you do this, I will change the way I look at the world in substantial ways, and quite possibly find some better purpose for myself.

t3_36osr8

CMV:It is wrong to have children if you are knowingly passing down a deadly or devastating disease/condition.

I'm talking about serious medical conditions like Huntington's, Neurofibromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and others. I think this especially true if you can be tested for the condition before reproducing. I'm thinking about the quality of life that the child or future adult would have. NF is one in particular I am personally acquainted with that concerns me, and has a 50% chance of being passed down from parent to child *with each pregnancy* . It is a human right to reproduce, but why would you bring a child who would know only immense pain and suffering **knowingly** into the world. I've had this talk with family, and the only argument I've heard was that "you can't worry about chance". That doesn't fly with me, so I want other opinions. Change my view? Edit: Wow this is great! Good arguments. Please keep 'em coming. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:It is wrong to have children if you are knowingly passing down a deadly or devastating disease/condition. I'm talking about serious medical conditions like Huntington's, Neurofibromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and others. I think this especially true if you can be tested for the condition before reproducing. I'm thinking about the quality of life that the child or future adult would have. NF is one in particular I am personally acquainted with that concerns me, and has a 50% chance of being passed down from parent to child *with each pregnancy* . It is a human right to reproduce, but why would you bring a child who would know only immense pain and suffering **knowingly** into the world. I've had this talk with family, and the only argument I've heard was that "you can't worry about chance". That doesn't fly with me, so I want other opinions. Change my view? Edit: Wow this is great! Good arguments. Please keep 'em coming.

t3_26xe67

CMV: Having mouse acceleration is more useful than not having it

I've always had mouse acceleration enabled when possible, on Windows and in games. My reasons: - If I'm moving my mouse quickly, that means I need to get to a certain point quickly. - I don't have to mess around with sensitivity as much with mouse acceleration. Without it though, (using first person shooters as example) I have to find a good balance between being able to aim carefully, and making quick turns. - For Windows, things are pretty spaced out. When clicking around my tabs, (using Chrome) I want to not have my mouse move so quickly because they're really close together, but when I want to open an application, I move my mouse to the bottom of my screen, which I can do with little effort thanks to mouse acceleration. **So my whole point is that with mouse acceleration I feel that I have a lot more freedom due to the design of Windows (which I like) and first person games.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Having mouse acceleration is more useful than not having it. I've always had mouse acceleration enabled when possible, on Windows and in games. My reasons: - If I'm moving my mouse quickly, that means I need to get to a certain point quickly. - I don't have to mess around with sensitivity as much with mouse acceleration. Without it though, (using first person shooters as example) I have to find a good balance between being able to aim carefully, and making quick turns. - For Windows, things are pretty spaced out. When clicking around my tabs, (using Chrome) I want to not have my mouse move so quickly because they're really close together, but when I want to open an application, I move my mouse to the bottom of my screen, which I can do with little effort thanks to mouse acceleration. **So my whole point is that with mouse acceleration I feel that I have a lot more freedom due to the design of Windows (which I like) and first person games.**

t3_4px9nb

CMV: EU punishing UK would be a big mistake

I don't have a strong opinion on the Brexit vote, I see many scenarios, both good and bad whether UK voted Leave or Remain. It all depends in how UK, EU and the rest of the world reacts. From the coverage of Brexit I think one of the best opinions on it have been by Paul Krugman: [Notes on Brexit](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/notes-on-brexit/), [Brexit the morning after](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/brexit-the-morning-after/) Now, why would punishing UK be a big mistake? What many people think is that EU needs to punish UK to economically disincetivise leaving the EU for other nations where such sentiments have been growing. I find this line of reasoning faulty for the following reasons: Most people who voted Leave didn't care about the very well comunicated warnings about the economic downturn, very possibly considering it an acceptable price to pay. The core of the issue is that people want to decide the issues like immigration in their own country where they feel they have the power to do so. The EU is perceived as less democratic and legitimate institution than individual nation states. The fact that people found it easier to do a domestic referendum to leave EU than to reform EU in the key issues proves this point. I think think the last thing EU should do to not fall apart is to show people that it doesn't listen to them by not quickly making reforms to the key issues and damaging its image even more by punishing UK. UK is still composed of people, around 48% of which didn't bring this on them. Going against the people is not going to help EU, it will only make the fires of populist parties stronger. EU needs to take this as long needed wake-up call to reform, dousing the flames. We might end up with just pretty loose co-operation between the states, based on voluntary temporary treaties, but until there are sufficient controls on EU to not overstep its mandate, it seems much better than an alternative of broken-up EU, spirit of co-operation gone from the nations with populist parties at power. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: EU punishing UK would be a big mistake. I don't have a strong opinion on the Brexit vote, I see many scenarios, both good and bad whether UK voted Leave or Remain. It all depends in how UK, EU and the rest of the world reacts. From the coverage of Brexit I think one of the best opinions on it have been by Paul Krugman: [Notes on Brexit](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/notes-on-brexit/), [Brexit the morning after](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/brexit-the-morning-after/) Now, why would punishing UK be a big mistake? What many people think is that EU needs to punish UK to economically disincetivise leaving the EU for other nations where such sentiments have been growing. I find this line of reasoning faulty for the following reasons: Most people who voted Leave didn't care about the very well comunicated warnings about the economic downturn, very possibly considering it an acceptable price to pay. The core of the issue is that people want to decide the issues like immigration in their own country where they feel they have the power to do so. The EU is perceived as less democratic and legitimate institution than individual nation states. The fact that people found it easier to do a domestic referendum to leave EU than to reform EU in the key issues proves this point. I think think the last thing EU should do to not fall apart is to show people that it doesn't listen to them by not quickly making reforms to the key issues and damaging its image even more by punishing UK. UK is still composed of people, around 48% of which didn't bring this on them. Going against the people is not going to help EU, it will only make the fires of populist parties stronger. EU needs to take this as long needed wake-up call to reform, dousing the flames. We might end up with just pretty loose co-operation between the states, based on voluntary temporary treaties, but until there are sufficient controls on EU to not overstep its mandate, it seems much better than an alternative of broken-up EU, spirit of co-operation gone from the nations with populist parties at power.

t3_29795e

CMV: My life belongs to me, and others can not lay claim to what I do with my life or my time living.

I believe that it is completely acceptable for an individual to be completely selfish in how they live their lives. While I appreciate those who contribute to society, I think that giving back to society should be a choice, not a requirement. I don't feel that it's necessary to volunteer my time to help the needy or the poor. When people call me selfish for not devoting my time to them, I always wonder why it isn't selfish for them to demand my time. It's not like those who are helping are entirely selfless. As a wise man once said, "there is no selfless good deed." People feel good about helping others in need, and that's their reward. I don't get that feeling, really. Isn't my work enough? If I'm self-sustaining and helping others through my work, why isn't my free time free without scrutiny and judgement for not using it to volunteer? I don't see myself on my deathbed thinking "I wish I had done more of what others ask of me." I see myself saying "I wish I had used my time the way I would have liked to." **edit: To clear things up, I help people. I do good. I'm kind, generous, and I believe I contribute to society. I would never "kill all toddlers" or ignore a drowning man. I'm not a threat, I'm not malicious, and I'm not willing allow my children to become sex slaves. What we're currently working out is "what has society given me that I NEED to 'give back?'" What makes my actions ones of responsibility rather than a choice? And please do not mistake my questions as unwillingness to change. I just need to arrive there logically, not artificially.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: My life belongs to me, and others can not lay claim to what I do with my life or my time living. I believe that it is completely acceptable for an individual to be completely selfish in how they live their lives. While I appreciate those who contribute to society, I think that giving back to society should be a choice, not a requirement. I don't feel that it's necessary to volunteer my time to help the needy or the poor. When people call me selfish for not devoting my time to them, I always wonder why it isn't selfish for them to demand my time. It's not like those who are helping are entirely selfless. As a wise man once said, "there is no selfless good deed." People feel good about helping others in need, and that's their reward. I don't get that feeling, really. Isn't my work enough? If I'm self-sustaining and helping others through my work, why isn't my free time free without scrutiny and judgement for not using it to volunteer? I don't see myself on my deathbed thinking "I wish I had done more of what others ask of me." I see myself saying "I wish I had used my time the way I would have liked to." **edit: To clear things up, I help people. I do good. I'm kind, generous, and I believe I contribute to society. I would never "kill all toddlers" or ignore a drowning man. I'm not a threat, I'm not malicious, and I'm not willing allow my children to become sex slaves. What we're currently working out is "what has society given me that I NEED to 'give back?'" What makes my actions ones of responsibility rather than a choice? And please do not mistake my questions as unwillingness to change. I just need to arrive there logically, not artificially.**

t3_1etpaf

I believe life was better before. CMV

I earnestly believe that I was born in the wrong century. For me, life would have been much better, say, around the turn of the last century, when we didn't have all these modern conveniences such as internet, supermarkets, mobil phones, etc. Of course, my view reflects living back then with substantial means. I realise that life has gotten somewhat better for the poor. Change my view!

I believe life was better before. CMV. I earnestly believe that I was born in the wrong century. For me, life would have been much better, say, around the turn of the last century, when we didn't have all these modern conveniences such as internet, supermarkets, mobil phones, etc. Of course, my view reflects living back then with substantial means. I realise that life has gotten somewhat better for the poor. Change my view!

t3_1wj5h8

I think that reading fiction and watching the movie adaptation of that book are equal. CMV

I feel no benefit out of reading fiction. The only point I see is to get a story across and this is achieved in movies. I am a history major and therefore are subjected to reading close to a book a week. I learn many things from these books that I can bring into the world but I feel like I don't get anything out of reading fiction. Share with me what you take out of fiction. Reddit seems to be very well read when it comes to fiction so this should be interesting to see every ones opinion. CHANGE MY VIEW

I think that reading fiction and watching the movie adaptation of that book are equal. CMV. I feel no benefit out of reading fiction. The only point I see is to get a story across and this is achieved in movies. I am a history major and therefore are subjected to reading close to a book a week. I learn many things from these books that I can bring into the world but I feel like I don't get anything out of reading fiction. Share with me what you take out of fiction. Reddit seems to be very well read when it comes to fiction so this should be interesting to see every ones opinion. CHANGE MY VIEW

t3_1w4lwk

The internet is losing it's freedom CMV

I just saw a petition to close Ask Fm and I mean no disrespect for their deceased daughter, I just don't find any sympathy for any of them. Shouldn't the teenagers have a little common sense and just not go on the web site anymore? One of the goals of the petition is to shut the site down (They are blaming Ask Fm for their daughters death, but not the bullies them selves) or at least remove the anonymity feature ( which is the whole idea of Ask Fm and the site might as well shut down). Plus there's a box where you tick allowing anon questions. The whole petition is idiotic and won't achieve anything. If you're getting cyber bullied report it and **Don't use the site again.** Isn't this just like parents trying to ban video games? I thought the internet was about freedom. Where you could say anything (to an extent and yes cyber bullying is serious) but banning websites is like taking away our freedom. The government control our IRL lives and now they want to take our virtual space too? I'm starting to think that the internet was never free to begin with. That the escape from the physical world, is merely an extension of our everyday life. Is it impossible for anyone to enjoy the anonymity and the wonders of the internet without being oppressed, and regulated by the government. I digress. I think we're in a battle that's already lost. The internet will just be like the real world. The whole idea of anonymity was that you could say (to an extent) and share anything without consequences. I think the internet is getting shittier change my view.

The internet is losing it's freedom CMV. I just saw a petition to close Ask Fm and I mean no disrespect for their deceased daughter, I just don't find any sympathy for any of them. Shouldn't the teenagers have a little common sense and just not go on the web site anymore? One of the goals of the petition is to shut the site down (They are blaming Ask Fm for their daughters death, but not the bullies them selves) or at least remove the anonymity feature ( which is the whole idea of Ask Fm and the site might as well shut down). Plus there's a box where you tick allowing anon questions. The whole petition is idiotic and won't achieve anything. If you're getting cyber bullied report it and **Don't use the site again.** Isn't this just like parents trying to ban video games? I thought the internet was about freedom. Where you could say anything (to an extent and yes cyber bullying is serious) but banning websites is like taking away our freedom. The government control our IRL lives and now they want to take our virtual space too? I'm starting to think that the internet was never free to begin with. That the escape from the physical world, is merely an extension of our everyday life. Is it impossible for anyone to enjoy the anonymity and the wonders of the internet without being oppressed, and regulated by the government. I digress. I think we're in a battle that's already lost. The internet will just be like the real world. The whole idea of anonymity was that you could say (to an extent) and share anything without consequences. I think the internet is getting shittier change my view.

t3_7302rq

CMV: Liberal Americans are generally not unfairly disrespectful towards American Republicans

As far as I can see, a common complaint among Republicans is that they are angry at condescending 'coastal elites' and liberals are being intolerant and disrespectful towards them. I don't think liberals are being unduly disrespectful (in general). I think the animosity between the two groups makes sense given the extremism among most of the GOP. I believe this for the following reasons: 1. Democrats are better at governing: According to a [variety](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/are-democrats-better-for-american-economy-by-jeffrey-frankel-2016-06?barrier=accessreg) of [sources](www.politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php) , Democrats are objectively better when governing the economy than Republicans. I've never seen Republicans address this. Plus when i look at the current health care debate, Republicans know they have no helpful ideas to introduce and are just trying to destroy Democratic accomplishments. If one side is objectively better at the business of governing, why should they treat the other side as an equal? 2. Democrats are better informed. [Increased levels of education](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/) correlate almost directly with support for Democrats. As one side is better qualified and better informed, why should they cater to a movement that doesn't really understand the issues at hand? 3. Republicans elected Trump. I can't think of any [major political party that would elect someone like Trump in any western democracy](http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/) aside from Republicans. If the best the GOP can do is an angry reality tv star, why should people take it seriously? If Democrats elected Caitlin Jenner or Lena Dunham, people would rightly mock them. 4. Republicans are more ruthless politically. From [Gerrymandering](https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380) and [ID laws](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-voter-id-law-registered-voters-2016-polls-presidential-trump-clinton-democratic-a7969526.html) to the [Supreme Court](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/americas-red-and-blue-judges/540924/) and [Senate](https://articles.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/09/mcconnells_legacy_degrading_the_senate_to_a_partis.amp), Republicans are far more ruthless and damaging to the political process. If one side is continually hurting the political system, why should they not be criticised for it? 5. Republicans are unpopular internationally. To most other democratic nations, Republicans seem extreme and their presidents and policies are unpopular. If most of the world views Republicans negatively, why should other Americans try to accommodate extreme views? 6. Republican states rely on liberal states financially. Despite Republican rhetoric, [their states disproportionately need federal assistance](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/). If their states are constantly in need of help, why should liberals want to hear their policies which have failed? 7. Republicans are disconnected from science and academia. Republicans seem to view universities and scientists as part of a liberal conspiracy. Given Republican views on climate change and [evolution](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/), is it really fair to expect universities to accommodate their views and ignore the evidence? If their views have little support among the experts, why should Democrats accommodate or seek their views? 8. Democrats are more tolerant. While Democrats are frequently accused of hating Republicans, I believe their opposition to them is justified given the other factors I describe while Republicans are intolerant of other races, religions and genders for purely emotional reasons. Why should liberals accommodate rhetoric that would be seen as hateful in their own society? I agree that Republicans are better at campaigning and winning elections and liberal condescension doesn't help but frankly, it seems like one party is objectively better than the other and asking liberals to 'open their minds' to Republican ideas is asking them to listen to ideas that are obviously inferior and therefore, less worthy of respect. If someone can prove to me that modern Republican ideology plays an important role in maintaining or improving positive parts of American society that liberals overlook, I'll CMV. Note: This isn't meant to offend Republicans. I'm not saying Republicans are stupid. I'm saying their political views aren't worthy of being treated as an equal opponent of 'liberal' American policies despite their massive support because of their severe and obvious flaws and damaging consequences. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Liberal Americans are generally not unfairly disrespectful towards American Republicans. As far as I can see, a common complaint among Republicans is that they are angry at condescending 'coastal elites' and liberals are being intolerant and disrespectful towards them. I don't think liberals are being unduly disrespectful (in general). I think the animosity between the two groups makes sense given the extremism among most of the GOP. I believe this for the following reasons: 1. Democrats are better at governing: According to a [variety](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/are-democrats-better-for-american-economy-by-jeffrey-frankel-2016-06?barrier=accessreg) of [sources](www.politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php) , Democrats are objectively better when governing the economy than Republicans. I've never seen Republicans address this. Plus when i look at the current health care debate, Republicans know they have no helpful ideas to introduce and are just trying to destroy Democratic accomplishments. If one side is objectively better at the business of governing, why should they treat the other side as an equal? 2. Democrats are better informed. [Increased levels of education](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/) correlate almost directly with support for Democrats. As one side is better qualified and better informed, why should they cater to a movement that doesn't really understand the issues at hand? 3. Republicans elected Trump. I can't think of any [major political party that would elect someone like Trump in any western democracy](http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/) aside from Republicans. If the best the GOP can do is an angry reality tv star, why should people take it seriously? If Democrats elected Caitlin Jenner or Lena Dunham, people would rightly mock them. 4. Republicans are more ruthless politically. From [Gerrymandering](https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380) and [ID laws](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-voter-id-law-registered-voters-2016-polls-presidential-trump-clinton-democratic-a7969526.html) to the [Supreme Court](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/americas-red-and-blue-judges/540924/) and [Senate](https://articles.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/09/mcconnells_legacy_degrading_the_senate_to_a_partis.amp), Republicans are far more ruthless and damaging to the political process. If one side is continually hurting the political system, why should they not be criticised for it? 5. Republicans are unpopular internationally. To most other democratic nations, Republicans seem extreme and their presidents and policies are unpopular. If most of the world views Republicans negatively, why should other Americans try to accommodate extreme views? 6. Republican states rely on liberal states financially. Despite Republican rhetoric, [their states disproportionately need federal assistance](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/). If their states are constantly in need of help, why should liberals want to hear their policies which have failed? 7. Republicans are disconnected from science and academia. Republicans seem to view universities and scientists as part of a liberal conspiracy. Given Republican views on climate change and [evolution](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/), is it really fair to expect universities to accommodate their views and ignore the evidence? If their views have little support among the experts, why should Democrats accommodate or seek their views? 8. Democrats are more tolerant. While Democrats are frequently accused of hating Republicans, I believe their opposition to them is justified given the other factors I describe while Republicans are intolerant of other races, religions and genders for purely emotional reasons. Why should liberals accommodate rhetoric that would be seen as hateful in their own society? I agree that Republicans are better at campaigning and winning elections and liberal condescension doesn't help but frankly, it seems like one party is objectively better than the other and asking liberals to 'open their minds' to Republican ideas is asking them to listen to ideas that are obviously inferior and therefore, less worthy of respect. If someone can prove to me that modern Republican ideology plays an important role in maintaining or improving positive parts of American society that liberals overlook, I'll CMV. Note: This isn't meant to offend Republicans. I'm not saying Republicans are stupid. I'm saying their political views aren't worthy of being treated as an equal opponent of 'liberal' American policies despite their massive support because of their severe and obvious flaws and damaging consequences.